regions and cities of europe, no. 88

Special featureEurope of the future

Michel Lebrun

News from the EU’s assembly of regional and local representatives

EUROPEAN UNION

Committee of the Regions

Nº 88

– S

epte

mbe

r-Oc

tObe

r 201

4

ISSN 1681-3235

OPEN DAYS2014

Jyrki Katainen

Ángel Gurría

Editorial

1 Editorial

2

OPEN DAYS 2014 Interview with Ángel Gurría, OECD Secretary-General

4

Interview with Marek Wozniak, COTER Chairman

8

Special feature Europe of the future

11

We have to get more for each euro spent Jyrki Katainen

11

We need a return to greater public investment to create jobs Catiuscia Marini

< -1.75

-1.75 – -1.25

-1.25 – -0.75

-0.75 – -0.25

-0.25 – 0.25

0.25 – 0.75

0.75 – 1.25

< 1.25

Standard deviation, range from poor quality(negative) to high quality (positive)

European Quality of Government index, 2013

EU = 0

Sour

ce: E

urop

ean

Com

mis

sion

, 6th

Coh

esio

n Re

port

© EuroGeographics Association for the administrative boundaries

0 500 Km

RO

SK

BG

IT

MT

CZ

HU

SI

FRUK

LV

ES

LU

CY

NL

ATIE

DK

DE

PL

BE

SE

EL

FI

LTEE

PT

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

40 50 60 70 80 90

WB

Gov

ernm

ent e

�ect

iven

ess

inde

x,

2012

sta

ndar

dise

d so

that

EU

=0

Absorption of CohesionPolicy funding andGovernment e�ectiveness,2014

Total absorption rate of Cohesion Policy funding 2007-2013 by 21/05/2014 (%)

Absorption of funding and project selection for the 2007 - 2013programming period

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

RO SK BG IT MT

CZ HU SI FR UK LV ES LU CY NL AT IE DK

DE PL BE SE EL FI LT EE PT

EU-2

7

Absorption rate May 2014 Project selection rate by end 2013% of total Cohesion Policy funding 2007-2013

14

Policy analysis The European Council’s Strategic Agenda and Europe 2020: A regional perspective

16

Crisis in Ukraine and Eastern Partnership

22 Rapporteurs have their say

27

Brief news and events

Table of ConTenTs

Reactions/comments: [email protected]

www.cor.europa.eu

Regions & Cities of Europe — N° 88

Director of Publication: Laurent Thieule Editor-in-Chief: Branislav Stanicek

Committee of the Regions Communication, Press and Events Directorate

Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 99–101 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Tel. +32 222822211

www.cor.europa.eu

Regions & Cities of Europe is a magazine of the Committee of the Regions, published by the Communication, Press and Events Directorate.

The content of this magazine does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the European Union institutions. Neither the institutions/bodies of the European Union, nor any person acting on their behalf, can be held responsible for any misuse of the information provided here.

© European Union, 2014

Printed in Belgium

@EU_CoR www.facebook.com/committee.of.the.regions

Nº 88 – September-OctOber 2014

Regions and Cities of euRope 1

Together we are creating the Europe of the future

A recent study carried out by the European Parliament, Mapping the Cost of Non-Europe 2014-2020, estimated the cost of

failing to complete the European project at almost EUR 800 billion. At a time when public policy decisions are defined by the opposing poles of aus-terity and Keynesian stimulus, advantage should be taken of the Union’s hidden resources that are available to us. The current crisis thus should en-courage us to look to the future and to boost com-mon policies that support industry, innovation and businesses, based on bold measures that are framed by economic and social trends in Europe. This is how we will create growth and jobs.

However, we should also be careful to ensure that the talk about numbers and policies translates into a vernacular explaining what is at stake for us all in the future. At the beginning of my term I prepared the ground for my political programme, which was to bring Europe closer to its citizens, cities and regions, and to bring them closer to Europe, to support growth and employment, to stabilise our neighbourhood, and to develop the institutional and political role of our assembly.

The path to be followed – and each step on that path – also reflect this. To start with, we know for certain that economic growth is taking off again, but that it is still fragile. As Jyrki Katainen, designated Vice-President of the European Commission for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro, notes in this issue, we must do more with fewer resources. In the current macroeconomic context, where budgets must be kept under control at every level, the only option for sustainable growth is a willingness to reform, innovate and support businesses, especially start-ups, which according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) generate some 90%

of new jobs and represent 60-70% of employment in the OECD member countries. Several regions and cities have developed projects to support businesses. I would cite the experience of the Veneto Region in Italy, with its competition for young entrepreneurs, as well as that of the city of Brussels, with the Atelier des Tanneurs business centre for start-ups, and the Innovation Center in Espoo, Finland, which supports cooperation between the university and local and regional authorities.

The future of young people could be sustained by setting up companies in the new technologies sector in particular, as noted by Ángel Gurría, OECD Secretary-General, in the interview contained in this issue. Youth employment is directly linked to quality of education and vocational training. EU instruments such as the Youth Guarantee are helping to bridge the gap between what is taught in educational establishments and employers’ expectations. There are economic sectors looking for skills that are difficult to find in the labour market, such as the IT and communications sector, where one million vacancies will have to be filled by the year 2020. Regions and cities can seize this opportunity and endeavour to cooperate with the European institutions to capitalise on the investments made available locally through the structural funds. Finally, renewable energy is another sector with the potential to create substantial employment (“green jobs”). Europe’s cities and regions have drawn up proposals for a support scheme for renewable energy, since they are convinced that only a coordinated approach at EU level, combined with appropriate investment, can deliver on these goals.

EU energy policy is inextricable from the stability of our neighbourhood, notably the geopolitical

situation in Ukraine. A CoR delegation recently visited Kiev, where we were received by the deputy Prime Minister, Volodymyr Hroysman, who is responsible for regional development and administrative reform. I noted when we were there how important it is for constitutional reform relating to administrative decentralisation to be guided by the principles of subsidiarity and multilevel governance. We also contributed to the ongoing debate between the government and Ukraine’s regional associations by analysing the government’s proposal for administrative reform.

The Committee of the Regions has recommended that the European Commission extend to our partners in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldavia – countries that have signed Association Agreements with the EU – cooperation arrangements such as the Local Administration Facility (LAF), or even the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC). We are willing to share our experiences of decentralisation and of administrative reform. On 29 September we met our eastern European partners once again at the Conference of Regional and Local Authorities for the Eastern Partnership (CORLEAP) in Tbilisi, Georgia. In future we will also be deepening our relations with the European Parliament and the EURONEST Parliamentary Assembly, which brings together members of parliament and elected representatives of the Union’s eastern neighbours, and I will propose to its new president Heidi Hautala, MEP, that a joint meeting between CORLEAP and EURONEST be held during 2015.

At the beginning of the new legislative term, I am confident that the CoR will consolidate its institutional position and will become even more effectively involved in the legislative process. We will work together with the European Parliament, the Council and the new European Commission to consolidate effective, future-oriented policies that serve the interests of our citizens and businesses. This will allow us to reduce the exorbitant cost of non-Europe. This is the path to growth and employment that is now inspiring our European neighbours. We will also continue to be a forum for contacts and exchange, and in this spirit I would like to welcome the 6 000 participants, partners and journalists who will be attending this 12th Open Days event.

Michel Lebrun (BE/EPP), President of the Committee of the Regions

ediTorial

“At a time when public policy decisions are defined by the

opposing poles of austerity and Keynesian stimulus, advantage should be taken of the Union’s

hidden resources that are available to us.”

News from the EU’s assembly of regional and local representatives2

How are regions recovering from the crisis?

It depends on which country and which regions we are talking about. It is hard to generalise. In terms of growth and jobs, there is even more varia-tion across regions than across countries. In some countries, differences between regions are enor-mous. Our OECD Regional Outlook 2014 sug-gests that, overall, cities have bounced back more quickly than the regions they are in, although there are exceptions. Rural regions have suffered more in terms of job losses but less in per capita output; this may be due in part to labour migration to cit-ies.

When we look at inter-regional disparities, we see a clearer picture, and it is a bleak one. In almost two-thirds of OECD countries, these disparities have grown over the last two decades and the crisis did not alter this trend. Inter-regional disparities have increased sharply, both in countries which have been severely affected by the downturn, like the Slovak Republic, and in others that largely es-caped it, like Poland. In a few countries, we have seen some inter-regional convergence since the downturn – Canada is a striking example – but in most cases this was due to downturns in richer regions rather than growth in poorer ones. This is clearly not the kind of convergence we want to see.

The OECD is increasingly active in debates over broader measures of social progress. Can you tell us something about this?

Undoubtedly the crisis and its aftermath have made us look harder at how we measure social progress. The crisis served to highlight the lim-its of purely economic assessments of well-being. This is why we have expanded our OECD Better Life Initiative to bring it down to the regional level, closer to what people experience on a daily basis. We recently launched a web-based tool, “How’s Life in Your Region?”; it allows users to compare 362 regions in 34 OECD countries on nine topics central to social progress and individual well-being – income, jobs, housing, health, education, safety, access to services, environment and civic engage-ment (www.oecdregionalwellbeing.org). On 6 Oc-tober, I will launch an in-depth report analysing these data – How’s life in your region? Measuring Regional Well-Being for Policy Making.

Examining regional well-being in this way reveals that disparities in non-pecuniary measures of well-being are often greater among regions within a country than across different countries. For ex-ample, the gap in the labour force’s educational at-tainments between the Basque Country and An-dalusia is similar to the difference between Spain and Sweden. Such regional disparities can increase welfare costs and jeopardise social cohesion. Even

more worrying is that intra-country gaps between the best- and worst-performing regions in ar-eas like health care have widened in many OECD countries.

Unevenness in well-being affects national perfor-mance. Countries with larger regional dispari-ties in access to education, jobs and key services also register lower well-being outcomes overall at country level. We see a disturbing degree of stabil-ity among the poorest-performing regions on key well-being indicators: for example, more than 90% of OECD regions ranking in the bottom quintile for education in 2000 were still there in 2013; for safety, the corresponding figure was over 80%.

Regional well-being indicators can empower citi-zens to demand actions that respond to their own specific expectations and, in turn, can restore their trust in the capacity of public institutions to ad-dress the most pressing challenges.

What can regional and local authorities do to accelerate the progress?

Regional and local authorities have a key role to play as they hold important responsibilities for many of the policies that bear most directly on people’s lives, for example in public investment and the delivery of essential services. Our new report, How’s Life in Your Region?, finds that using re-

Interview with Ángel Gurría, OECD Secretary-General

The crisis has squeezed the resources available to regional and local authorities

oPen daYs 2014

EuropE is still sEarching for a way to gEt back on its fEEt. local and rEgional authoritiEs, along with citizEns, arE bEaring thE brunt of fiscal consolidation. on thE occasion of thE opEn days 2014 – thE world’s largEst-scalE EvEnt focusEd on rEgional and urban dEvElopmEnt – wE mEt with ÁngEl gurría, oEcd sEcrEtary-gEnEral sincE 2006, to discuss thE challEngEs facing EuropE’s rEgions and

citiEs. sEcrEtary-gEnEral gurría strEssEd that “policiEs that takE account of rEgional diffErEncEs will bE crucial to mitigating thE long-tErm consEquEncEs of thE crisis and tackling challEngEs such as population agEing, EnvironmEntal sustainability and inclusivE growth. our countriEs nEEd nEw and original idEas for crEating growth and jobs and Enhancing public invEstmEnt, Education and transparEncy. this will rEquirE Engaging and EmpowEring rEgions and citiEs.”



gional well-being metrics can help policymakers prioritise policy interventions where improve-ments are needed and exploit synergies among sectoral policies.

There is also a role for regional and local authori-ties in adapting national policies to the needs of specific places. Some policies are best left with na-tional governments, for example, labour migration, which may be good for aggregate performance and beneficial for those involved, yet detrimental to regions that lose skilled labour. But policies to im-prove information on jobs, labour-market match-ing, training and subsidies to employers may be better designed at regional or local level. At the very least, there needs to be scope for local adapta-tion.

Where do regions and regional policy fit in the policy mix the OECD would recommend to countries seeking to boost growth and jobs?

A growing body of OECD work has underscored the limits of one-size-fits-all policies. Traditional approaches are reaching their limits: there is less scope today for using macroeconomic instruments to stimulate growth or for fiscal easing and even unconventional monetary instruments like “quan-titative easing” can only go so far.

Our work suggests two things. First, even within countries, the barriers to growth differ considera-bly from one region to another: the obstacles facing major cities often differ systematically from those facing smaller cities, while rural places face their own challenges. Secondly, we should pay increas-ing attention to the trade-offs that can be made between different policy goals and the potential

complementarities from taking an integrated ap-proach. The benefits are often most visible – and manageable – at the regional or local level. For ex-ample, cities and regions are well-placed to identify the advantages of pursuing environmental and eco-nomic goals in tandem, rather than seeing them as at odds with each other.

What will be the main new challenges facing local and regional authorities in Europe, and their citizens, in coming years?

The major challenges we face are not so new: envi-ronmental degradation, demographic change and rising inequalities, to name but three. What has changed is the context in which we confront them. The crisis has exacerbated problems like jobless-ness and poor social cohesion. It has also consid-erably damaged people’s trust in government and other institutions and eroded their faith that they can fix these problems. Most immediately, the cri-sis has squeezed the resources available to regional and local authorities. Public investment across the OECD fell by 21% during 2009-12. This means that a great deal of needed and potentially growth-enhancing investment is being postponed or aban-doned, hurting future growth and service delivery. Since almost three-quarters of public investment in the OECD is undertaken by sub-national au-thorities, this represents a particularly important challenge.

Unfortunately, a slow economic recovery will im-pose tight fiscal constraints for the foreseeable fu-ture. Many regions are finding it hard to keep up with a rising demand for public services, let alone invest for the future. Local and regional authori-ties thus need to do more – and better – with less. The OECD has worked hard with countries and

regions on the management of public investment across different levels of government. Last March, the OECD Council endorsed a Recommendation on Effective Public Investment across Levels of Government which should help governments as-sess the strengths and weaknesses of their public investment capacity and set priorities for improve-ment.

How do you see the future of European regional policy after 2014 and its role in supporting economic recovery?

The squeeze on public investment makes structur-al funds all the more important. Cohesion policy will make available up to EUR 351.8 billion to in-vest in European regions and cities between now and 2020. In many places, such funds are crucial to sustaining even minimal levels of investment and with so much European policy oriented towards fiscal consolidation, the role of regional policy as an economic pillar can only grow.

As you know, the new programming period has involved changes to make regional policy better targeted, more results-oriented and more efficient. We welcome the attempt to balance stronger top-down control mechanisms, such as greater use of conditionality requirements, with a degree of managerial decentralisation. In the end, though, it will be up to national governments and the regions to make the best use of these funds: where they approach the new rules in a formalistic fashion, looking for the easiest ways to access funds, the re-sults will probably be disappointing. By contrast, where cohesion investments are based on serious analysis of regional needs and potential, the new arrangements should help to ensure – and, later on, to reward – better designed investments.

Ángel Gurría has been OECD Secretary-General since 2006, following a distinguished career

in public service, including serving as Mexico’s Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1994-98 and as Minister of Finance and Public Credit from 1998-2000. Under his leadership, the OECD has reinforced its role as a forum for global debate on economic policy, expanded its membership to include Chile, Estonia, Israel and Slovenia and strengthened links with major emerging economies such as Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa. Mr. Gurría is a member of the International Advisory Board of Governors of the Centre for International Governance Innovation, based in Canada. He holds a B.A. degree in Economics from UNAM (Mexico), and an M.A. degree in Economics from Leeds University (UK).

“Inter-regional disparities have increased sharply, both in countries which have been severely affected by the downturn, like the Slovak

Republic, and in others that largely escaped it, like Poland.”


What are your political priorities during the new legislative term?

One of the Committee of the Regions’ key expec-tations for the new EU’s legislative term is to create more and better jobs through sustainable and ter-ritorially balanced growth. In this context, there is a need to use the mid-term review of the multi-annual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 to examine the EU’s increasing difficulties in meet-ing its legal obligations. This should ensure that the budget corresponds to the evolving strategic priorities of the Union. One can thus counter the increasing regional disparities that pose a serious threat to territorial cohesion by adding a territo-rial dimension to Europe’s growth and jobs strat-egy and monitoring the necessary steps at EU level. We call on the Commission to present a White Paper on territorial cohesion and an integrated EU urban agenda to reinforce the concept of economic, social and territorial cohesion. One should keep in mind that subsidiarity and multilevel governance go hand in hand with strong local and regional self-government.

Could you give us some concrete examples of mutual inspiration?

The Committee of the Regions’ and the European Parliament’s visions of the future of cohesion pol-icy post-2013 were similar and mutually inspired, which resulted in common views on the main ob-jectives: a new category of “transition regions”, the enshrinement of multilevel governance and part-nership principles, more f lexibility in the thematic

concentration of the various funds on Europe 2020, the introduction of a Common Strategic Framework as well as strengthening the territorial dimension of cohesion policy. Under the current Cooperation Agreement with the European Par-liament, this approach will be further reinforced with the aim of making a better contribution to the EU legislative process, mainly through closer collaboration between the rapporteurs of both in-stitutions as well as joint activities of REGI and the COTER.

What kind of synergies and political impact would you expect from enhanced cooperation between the COTER and REGI in the future?

In recent years the annual joint COTER-REGI meetings have proved to be a great success and strengthened cooperation between the members of the two bodies. One of our common objectives could be to follow up politically the implementa-tion of the European Investment and Structural Funds according to the principles enshrined in the Regulations. In particular we would like to assess the involvement of local and regional authorities in the programming, implementation, and possi-ble re-programming of the partnership agreements and operational programmes and put forward appropriate recommendations in case Member States fail to comply with these provisions.

While having an eye on the future, we already en-visage starting a forward-looking debate as part of the next “Cohesion Policy Cycle”. As a political

assembly of regional and local representatives, we believe that it is important for the Committee of the Regions to launch a debate on how to find the right means to foster economic, social and territo-rial cohesion. This could be, for instance, another interesting topic to consider for joint REGI-CO-TER meetings in the future, which would entail a discussion about a place-based approach and about meeting performance-orientation criteria as well as assessing regional performance beyond the current GDP-based approach.

Interview with Marek Wozniak, COTER Chairman

Growing together – smart investment for people

oPen daYs 2014

on thE occasion of thE joint cotEr-rEgi mEEting and thE opEn days 2014, wE mEt with marEk wozniak (pl/Epp), chair of thE committEE of thE rEgions’ commission for tErritorial cohEsion (cotEr). hE prEsEntEd his prioritiEs for thE coming months, as wEll as nEw possibilitiEs for coopEration bEtwEEn thE cor and thE EuropEan parliamEnt’s committEE for rEgional dEvElopmEnt (rEgi).

marEk wozniak, who is also prEsidEnt of thE wiElkopolska rEgion in poland, strEssEd that “wE would likE to assEss thE involvEmEnt of local and rEgional authoritiEs in thE programming, implEmEntation, and possiblE rE-programming of thE partnErship agrEEmEnts and opErational programmEs and put forward appropriatE rEcommEndations in casE mEmbEr statEs fail to comply with thEsE provisions.” hE agrEEd that coopEration bEtwEEn thE cotEr and rEgi should continuE and hElp providE bEttEr policy rEcommEndations, inspirEd by thE grassroots lEvEl of politics, to thE EuropEan lEgislativE procEss.

open daYs 2014

Marek Wozniak



Analysis of the impact of CoR’s opinions Once a year the Committee submits a re-

port on the impact of its opinions to the plenary session. This report summarises

the CoR’s impact in the major fields of its politi-cal activity. The impact of the CoR political and consultative works is not always clearly measur-able in figures and numbers. However, a number of different types of “impact” have to be identified, such as concrete proposals of the CoR taken up in final legislation; policy recommendations of the CoR considered in proposed legislation or in legislative procedures; the major contribution of CoR positions to ongoing political debates; as well as references made to CoR positions in other EU documents, e.g. resolutions of the European Par-liament and the involvement of CoR rapporteurs or commission chairpersons in inter-institutional events. The report is based on information col-lected throughout the year by persons responsible for the file; on reports from the European Com-mission on the follow-up to the Committee of the Regions’ opinions as well as on the analysis of the different stages of the inter-institutional develop-ments. The impact report is drawn up by the ad-ministration and discussed in meetings of the CoR commissions before being submitted to the CoR plenary assembly.

In the 2013 impact report 70 opinions with some significant impact were taken into account. Last year has been particularly busy as intense ne-gotiations linked to a new programming period and consequently to different EU’s funding pro-grammes came to a close. The CoR has been able to play a relevant and coherent institutional role in many fields, in particular on the future of the EU budget, the new Cohesion Policy, the Seventh En-vironmental Action Framework, the cultural and creative sectors and on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, to mention just a few.

As in 2012, one of the key priorities in 2013 con-cerned the legislative package for Cohesion Policy for 2014-2020 and its potential impact on the economic, social and territorial development of Europe. The CoR adopted seven opinions related to the reform of cohesion policy. Throughout the year, CoR members contributed actively to the po-litical debate and to the inter-institutional negotia-tions. Even though the Committee of the Regions’ call for an increase in the 2014-2020 budget has not been taken into account, the final outcome of the negotiations on cohesion policy has been very positive.

More flexibility in the thematic concentration of the EU funds

In relation to the architecture and types of regions, a new category of “transition regions” has been cre-ated. Moreover, CoR members have succeeded in convincing the European Parliament and Council to introduce greater f lexibility in the thematic con-centration of the various EU funds. Contrary to the previous financing period, the Common Provi-sions Regulation (CPR) now also covers the rural development fund (EAFRD) and the maritime/fisheries fund (EMFF), and a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) has been introduced to facili-tate coordination between them. In addition, the European Social Fund (ESF) will be covered by the CPR and the CSF. The CoR has also man-aged to convince the European Parliament and the Council not to put local and regional authorities on an equal footing with social partners and NGOs, contrary to the period 2007-2013. The EGTC (European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation) regulation has also been reviewed in line with the CoR’s request and the institutional role of the CoR has been strengthened.

In environmental policy, and more particularly in the work on the Seventh Environmental Action Framework, it can be noted that the European

Parliament took indeed on board a number of sug-gestions from the CoR. The Parliament calls for “close cooperation with the Committee of the Re-gions” and reflects several key recommendations of the opinion such as the call for more dissemination of best practices between both Member States and local and regional authorities (LRAs), the call on the European Commission to examine the greater participation by LRAs when defining environmen-tal policy and the need to help improve the knowl-edge and capacity of LRAs involved in implement-ing environmental legislation. On top of that, The Seventh Environmental Action Programme refers explicitly to LRAs including to their responsibility for decision on use of land and marine areas. The CoR/EC Joint Technical Platform for Coopera-tion on the Environment, co-launched by the CoR and DG Environment in December 2012 has been explicitly referred to in the Seventh Environmental Action Programme, which reflects the CoR’s suc-cessful long-term commitment in this area.

One lesson learned from the last impact report is that the CoR’s activities should focus on locally and regionally relevant topics, with clear and con-cise proposals in the decision-making process and based on a long-term commitment from the CoR in the policy field.

Regions eligiblefor Structural Funds(ERDF and ESF) bycategory, 2014-2020

Category

Less developed regions (GDP per head < 75% of EU-27 average)

Transition regions (GDP per head between >= 75% and < 90% of EU-27 average)

More developed regions (GDP per head >= 90% of EU-27 average)

Source: Eurostat, DG REGIO

0 500 Km© EuroGeographics Association for the administrative boundaries


Workshops100

Venues Brussels30

Journalists>250

Participants6000

Regional partners + cities>200

Local events allover Europe>300

OPEN DAYS in �gures

13th European Week ofRegions and CitiesBrussels 12 - 15 October 2015

Roadmap for OPEN DAYS 2015

13-1

5 O

ctob

er

September/November

Local events "Europe in my region/city"

In an attempt to bring the messages of the OPEN DAYS closer to Europe's citizens,

each participating region and city organises at least one local event on their

home ground, to be held between September and November, under the heading "Europe in

my region/city". Many independent partners join this exercise of

decentralised communication, and the European Cooperation Day events are also associated.

According to estimates, the local events reach out to about 200,000 participants.

Local events are organised around the annual thematic priorities of OPEN DAYS. They are aimed at the general

public, potential bene�ciaries of EU regional policy, expert audiences, academics and the media and can take various

formats such as conferences, workshops, radio/TV broadcasts or exhibitions.

Opening session in the European Parliament

Roundtable with journalists100 workshops and

various networking activities

July

The programme is published on the event website and online registration

opens for around 6000 participants per edition.

Preparatory arrangements for over 30 venues in Brussels and focus on the promotion of the event, including a media programme which would be o�ered to participating journalists from all over Europe. The new OPEN DAYS posters are available at the Committee of the Regions!

February/April May/July

12 October

The programme of the event becomes more

concrete. Around 100 workshops are organised by over 200 selected partners, focusing on three speci�c themes. Over the years, the OPEN DAYS has grown into the key event on EU regional policy.

12-15 October

The European Week of Regions and Cities in Brussels. The annual four-day

event is an inter-institutional platform for political communication, a means of

capacity-building for regional and local stakeholders, and facilitates communication

on EU a�airs at local level. OPEN DAYS makes use of important moments in the EU agenda to

get the message across to EU decision makers regions and cities make a di�erence in e�ective

EU policy-making and funding. The OPEN DAYS bring o�cials at EU, national, regional and local

level together in order to exchange experiences and new ideas and to make sure that public money is well

spent.

December/January

Representatives from Europe's regions and cities gather in Brussels for the

kick-o� meeting of the OPEN DAYS – an annual event organised by the European

Commission Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy and the

Committee of the Regions, during which event partners have the opportunity to showcase

their capacity to create growth and jobs, implement European Union cohesion policy, and

prove the importance of the local and regional level for good European governance.

Regions and cities matter because sub-national public authorities in the EU are responsible for one third of

public expenditure and two thirds of public investments. At the heart of EU funding, there are 320

cohesion policy programmes worth EUR 366 billion, which aim at ensuring smart, sustainable and inclusive

development in all regions and cities.

www.opendays.europa.eu

[email protected]@ec.europa.eu@EU_Regional @EU_CoR#euopendayswww.�ickr.com/photos/opendays

EUROPEAN UNION



Committee of the Regions, Brussels – at the heart of the European institutions

SpecIal Feature | euRope of the futuRePh

oto

by A

lexa

ndre

Laur

ent (

2011

)



Following the european elections and ahead oF the Formation oF the next european commission, the committee oF the regions has put Forward its expectations and proposals For the new eu legislative mandate. representatives oF eu cities and regions argue that the main objectives must be to create more and better jobs, and generate territorially-balanced growth to strengthen

citizens’ trust in the european project.

Europe of the futureExpectations for next EU legislative mandate


euroPe of The fuTure

at its last plEnary sEssion, cor mEmbErs adoptEd a rEsolution sEtting forth thE political prioritiEs which, in thE cors’ viEw, should guidE thE work of thE nExt EuropEan commission’s and parliamEnt’s mandatEs. michEl lEbrun (bE/Epp), nEwly-ElEctEd prEsidEnt of thE cor, statEd, “on thE EvE of thE nEw Eu lEgislativE mandatE, i vEry much wElcomE thE contribution of our assEmbly to influEncE

thE political agEnda of this nEw mandatE. thE guidElinEs prEsEntEd in this rEsolution will form thE basis of my futurE institutional contacts during this nExt sEmEstEr as cor prEsidEnt.”

Expectations for next EU legislative mandate

Investing for more growth and jobs

Europe’s local and regional authorities have been hit hard by the crisis, leading to a significant reduction of public expenditure despite growing financial demands to cope with high unemployment and social exclusion. Against this backdrop, Michael Schneider, President of the CoR’s EPP Group, stressed that: “As we enter the new legislative mandate for the EU, we cannot forget our responsibility to create more and better jobs in Europe’s cities and regions. Economic reform and growth-friendly budget consolidation must be priorities for the coming months and years. We call on the Commission to consider more innovative and ambitious support methods for EU public investment and to enhance synergies between the EU, national and sub-national budgets.”

The President of the CoR Socialists’ Group (PSE), Karl-Heinz Lambertz, insisted on the importance of public investment for cities and regions and called for stronger f lexibility in fiscal discipline: “Public investment is a top priority for us. The leverage effect of public investment, two-thirds of which fall under the responsibility of local authorities, should not be curtailed without any consideration of economic common sense. This requires an adaptation of the Stability Pact. In the short term, we insist on the need to exclude from the calculation of budget deficits national and regional co-financing when it comes to EU funded investments. In the medium term, the Commission must submit proposals that consider the quality and long-term effect of public investment.”

These views and proposals are ref lected in the resolution which also calls for extending the Europe 2020 project bonds initiative based on the results of the evaluation expected in 2015.

Strengthening the territorial focus of EU policies

The CoR reiterates its call for a territorial dimension to be introduced on the occasion of the review of the EU’s growth strategy. It also advocates closer involvement of local and regional authorities in the economic and financial policy coordination process (“European Semester”) and stresses that territorial impact assessments should be mandatory in the European’s Commission’s impact analysis of new legislative proposals. The CoR further suggests putting special emphasis on the development of cross-border solutions, interregional networking and macro-regional strategies by also extending the use of European Groupings for Territorial Co-operation as an instrument for other EU policies.

In this regards, the President of the ALDE Group, Bas Verkerk stated: “The EU must strengthen the territorial dimension in EU policies to facilitate regions and cities’ contribution to the EU growth strategy.” He further insisted on the CoR’s call to the Commission to present a “White Paper on Territorial Cohesion” to address growing territorial disparities and promote urban/rural sustainable development through a White Paper on integrated urban development.

Preparing the EU for new policy challenges

The CoR calls on the Commission to work closely with cities and regions in their efforts to integrate migrants and urges for the development of a comprehensive migration policy. In the field of competitiveness, it asks for the development of a “regional Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme” (REFIT) initiative to reduce administrative burden for SMEs, and to enhance the role of smart specialisation strategies to tackle the innovation divide between EU regions. The CoR stresses the need for a revised EU energy

strategy based on local and regional solutions for climate change (e.g. Covenant of Mayors) and further develop the partnership principle in this area. It also invites the Commission to propose a proper rural development strategy based on an integrated territorial approach. With regard to external relations, CoR members reiterate their support to continuing the enlargement of the EU and stress that the EU must step up support to Eastern Partnership countries to promote local democracy and decentralisation. They call for developing tools to increase social and territorial cohesion in the Mediterranean and ask the Commission to expand the Local Administration Facility programme to EU’s southern neighbours.

In a bid to strengthening citizens’ trust in the EU, CoR members encourage the Commission to co-operate more closely with the CoR to implement a genuine decentralised communication policy at regional and local level. On this subject, Uno Silberg, chair of the CoR European Alliance Group, pointed out: “While we have endured a hard-hitting financial and economic crisis, this has also contributed to the crisis of confidence in the EU. The European elections results demonstrate that Europe needs to change. We need to change the way we communicate and better explain what we are doing and what we have achieved. We have to rebuild trust with the citizens! That should be our main goal for the near future”.

Also considering the role of the CoR in a longer term, Gordon Keymer, President of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR), emphasised that, “The EU must embrace localism during its next legislative mandate. This is key to sustainable growth and jobs and key to bringing the EU closer to the citizens. Even if it does not happen in this new EU legislative mandate, I would like to see the CoR given the powers to amend and delay EU legislation. A bottom-up approach is the only way forward for the EU.”



We must respond to their concerns and bridge the divide. Our most important challenge today is to create the right

conditions for sustainable economic recovery, growth and jobs. European regions and cities are crucial partners in our common efforts to find a way out of the crisis; they are places where new ideas and start-ups can grow, places of hope and faith in the future. To support this process, sound public finances and reforms are also needed at local and regional level, and should be aligned with the principle of fiscal responsibility. In times of budg-etary constraint, we have to get more for each euro spent. European Structural and Investment Funds have a budget of EUR 351.8 billion (32.5% of the overall EU budget for 2014 to 2020) and are im-portant tools for investment and innovation which can boost recovery, growth and social cohesion.

We can now see signs of a turnaround in the economy, including in countries hardest hit by the crisis. They have made a concerted effort to rebuild their economies, in very difficult social circumstances. However, recovery is still fragile and unemployment, especially among young people, is still far too high. Strong policy action – at national and EU level – needs to continue. The three key words are investment, reform and stability.

First, growth and job creation require investment. For investment to f low, we need a favourable business environment and a service-oriented public administration, also at national, local and regional level. We need a stable and robust banking sector and efficient capital markets to provide accessible credit for households and SMEs, and to

channel savings into infrastructure and industry, education, research and innovation.

Second, Member States must continue to reform their economies, boost competitiveness and create more dynamic and inclusive labour markets, which also applies to local and regional authorities.

And third, building on past achievements, fiscal consolidation needs to continue to address the high levels of debt that still exist. However, fiscal strategies must be both growth-friendly and fair. They must focus on the quality of public finances, rationalising current expenditure while maintaining targeted public investment in people as well as in projects.

EuropE is not just a gEographical Entity: it is a commitmEnt to a sEt of valuEs which wE must nEvEr bE allowEd to takE for grantEd. in rEcEnt yEars, EuropE has bEEn hit by thE dEEpEst financial crisis sincE thE 1930s. thE social cost of thE rEcEssion has bEEn Enormous, and many fEEl that EuropE has failEd to safEguard stability and wElfarE. othErs fEEl that thEy havE had to pay for othErs’ mistakEs.

We have to get more for each euro spentJyrki Katainen, designated Vice-President of the European Commission for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro

It has become clear that purely austerity-based policies have produced a pervasive feeling of so-cial malaise which has often resulted in hostility

towards national and European institutions. The results of the European elections have shown that voters want a change of pace. This could be done by replacing austerity with initiatives supporting development and growth by making more and bet-ter use of public investment and relaxing Growth and Stability Pact rules.

In recent years, local authorities have been pushed to take up a defensive position in order to comply with Stability Pact requirements by cutting back on public spending on investment. Slashing public investment has gradually bled the European

social model dry, undermining services which are fundamental for people’s quality of life. This is particularly true for public services of general interest (public transport, the environment, school buildings and social housing) and sectors vital for local economies such as construction.

During the Italian presidency of the European Union, the Committee of the Regions and the new European Parliament could spearhead a return to greater public investment in order to create jobs and lessen the unstable employment situations which women and young people have to live with, reduce the tax burden on labour and provide tax incentives for corporate investment, support the restructuring and conversion of production

sectors through a more extensive system of social shock absorbers, and direct part of public demand to drive new business activities and support a new era of investment in infrastructure and in making areas safe.

We need to make it very clear that Structural Fund co-financing at all levels (national, regional, provincial and municipal) needs to be taken out of the equation for the Growth and Stability Pact; this could get bogged-down infrastructure and public works projects going again. This “operational” measure could be a tangible and immediate way to leverage investment and bring about a change of pace.

We need a return to greater publicinvestment to create jobs

Catiuscia Marini (IT/PES), first Vice-President of the Committee of the Regions


For me, as the rapporteur on the Committee of the Regions’ opinion on European Terri-torial Cooperation and 1st Vice-Chairman

of the COTER commission, macro-regional strat-egies are a very important element not just in the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy, but in ensuring that the EU starts to truly operate as a single entity. Although we are carrying out a raft of common policies, not without success, we are starting to see national interests being champi-oned in key votes and decisions. Not surprisingly, this pursuit of national interests is all the keener the greater the problems that countries have to sort out. No blame attaches to this; it is simply a rational way to behave, since each country is in a different economic and financial situation and therefore argues for the approach and solution to a problem that best suits itself. But why are we in that situation? As I see it, the fundamental prob-lem, apart from the different economic and social circumstances in each country, is that national strategies are not coordinated across borders.

And when I say strategies, I do not mean just the broad, overarching strategies, but above all quite specific ones, such as those for transport, energy, waste, water, for supporting enterprise, science

and research, and for emergency systems. It is in-tegrating these strategies that would help to create a real single Union area.

The newly formed macro-regions could be exactly what we need to achieve this kind of interconnec-tion. But we cannot focus on just one set of issues; we have to try to address all areas of life in the territory concerned. No easy task, of course. But I personally think that it is the supranational per-spective of larger territorial entities that provides the challenging way forward that we need to adopt in order to create a shared EU space and so to im-prove competitiveness and unleash the economic and social potential so far dormant.

But this is not just about macro-regions. Smaller cross-border European regions also contribute a great deal. They may be smaller, but this also means they can take a more practical and penetrat-ing approach to addressing particular problems and adopting measures. The advantage of these European regions is that they usually come into being in response to the needs of the public and of local and regional authorities: they are bottom-up initiatives, in other words.

I personally am involved in work in the Danube-Vltava European Region, which brings together neighbouring border regions of Bavaria, Austria and the Czech Republic. International coopera-tion is particularly desirable in areas where the Iron Curtain once stood. This is because the re-gions here have different economic and social lev-els and replacing a narrowly national perspective of their development with a supranational one could provide significant added value for the EU as a whole.

I should like to finish by stressing that interna-tional territorial cooperation is a unique instru-ment (and one that has no substitute) for creating and deepening a truly united European space and, as I wrote in my opinion on the European terri-torial cooperation regulation: crossborder, trans-national and interregional cooperation should not be focused, unlike other European structural and investment funds, on fulfilling the Europe 2020 strategy as such, but on creating the conditions for its achievement and for interconnecting Europe and its citizens.

We need a decentralised EU. Powers must not be concentrated in Brussels as this will be to the detriment of our liberal

democratic principles. The EU must remain close to the citizens, which means ensuring that cities and regions are involved in the decision-making process. Local and regional authorities must be given the powers to amend and delay EU legisla-tion through the CoR. Local and regional authori-ties are the level of governance that implement most EU legislation. We can see the local and re-gional impact of the legislation produced in Brus-sels and we know what works and what does not.

Also, we need a focus on better regulations, not more regulations. The new legislative mandate must focus on cutting-red tape and reducing administrative burdens. The success of the EU must be measured by the impact it is having in our cities and regions and not by the number of decisions taken. Better regulations would enable us to achieve a more business friendly environment, which is crucial to achieving sustainable growth and jobs. Our resources should be achieving impact on the ground rather than creating costly burdens and barriers to growth and jobs. In the new legislative mandate, the Commission must

dedicate at least its first year of work to reviewing EU regulations and their territorial impact.

In the new legislative mandate, we must also must ensure that matters are handled at the EU level only what absolutely necessary. This principle is enshrined in our Treaties as the subsidiarity principle and each decision taken at the EU level must go through a subsidiarity filter.

We need to focus on delivering modern and efficient services to our citizens in a cost-efficient manner. For this, we need innovative solutions. In

Individual national strategies need more integration

Petr Osvald (CZ/PES), first Vice-Chairman of the CoR’s COTER commission

A local agenda for the new EU legislative mandate

Cllr Gordon Keymer (UK/ECR), President of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group in the Committee of the Regions

euRope of the futuRe



the regard, the full, timely and correct transposition and use of the provisions of new legislative package on public procurement is important, as is the use of the new procedure of “innovation partnerships”. This new procedure enables innovative small and

medium sized enterprises to inf luence the design of procurements, and propose innovative solutions.

To ensure that our citizens are getting the most for their money, we must couple public and private investment in our geographically and

demographically challenged regions to ensure balanced growth and jobs. We must also couple public and private investments to build resilience to disasters. It is far more cost-efficient to invest in resilience than it is to recover from a disaster.

Markku Markkula – elected in June as the 1st Vice-President of the EPP Group – worries that the future is often taken too

superficially in politics. It is easy to focus on the present of the governance and only in passing refer to expert foresight studies and use them to argue for the Good life. Instead, it is more difficult to de-pict the complex global value networking and ways of influencing this.

The former CoR President Valcárcel Siso, now the Vice-President of the European Parliament, during the CoR Plenary 20 June stressed that the key competences in the regions include “hard” policies such as industry, entrepreneurship, exports, innovation, and research and development.“ Why are these hard policies so important? With the prolonged economic crisis, finding solutions to the grand societal challenges has become centrepiece – in political decision-making, as well as in research, education and innovation policies.

Markku Markkula (FIN/EPP), Vice-President of the Committee of the Regions, states that predicting the future is not enough, what we really need is policy innovation. Decision makers need to be able to show how demanding societal challenges are met by means of well-argued change measures. We can achieve this with our active involvement in innovation.

Placing innovation in the centre of politics

“Finland had made significant investments in research and technology in the 1980’s. However, Finland’s economy was in severe crisis in the early 1990’s. Bolstering innovativeness was of prime importance, in other words, shifting funding from consumption to research and long-term investments”.

Placing innovations and inventing the future in the valued centre of politics served as another key element. After Finland joined the EU in 1995, its government gave the Parliament a two-part report “Finland and the Future of Europe” and “Skill and Fair Play – an Active and Responsible Finland”. Processing the Parliament’s response was organized through a special Committee for the Future with 17 MPs as members.

Many leading politicians have served as members of the Committee for the Future, including the former Prime Minister and the new Finnish EU Commissioner Jyrki Katainen as the chair of this Committee. At the same time, already in the 1990’s, technology assessment and innovation as concepts and practices were brought into the agenda of active political debate in Finland.

Our insight in the Finnish Parliament was that also political decision-makers need to be actively engaged in inventing the future, not just predicting the future.

Implementing the CoR Athens’ Declaration

“Reviewing my nine years as the CoR member, starting as an alternate in 2006 and acting for eight years as an MP in Finland prior to that, much has changed in the EU policy. However, much more needs to be changed, since small changes do not suffice in managing the on-going paradigmatic change. As we stated in the Athens Declaration, the EU needs to encourage more bottom-up implementation and give Europe 2020 a strong territorial dimension. This means making multi-level governance the standard approach for Europe 2020”, stressed Markku Markkula. In the Athens Declaration, the CoR proposed renewed action

plans for the EU Flagship Initiatives for the next five years as part of a longer ten-year perspective such as in a “Decade for Innovation”. The CoR supports the establishment of a “Public Sector Innovation Platform” and urges more benchmarking and peer learning between regions and cities.

Markkula would like to integrate this to the recommendations made by Valcárcel Siso: “The CoR might gradually develop into the ‘European Senate of the Regions’. This Assembly of political representatives of the EU’s LRAs would be a ‘Reflection Chamber’ with semi-legislative powers, rather than a fully-f ledged third chamber at EU level.” Markkula would gladly see the CoR journey develop in that direction “through the renewal of the role of the CoR’s Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform and the structure of its Steering Committee, on which he has been the EPP representative”. Markkula continues: “Already by now, the Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform carries out high-level expert hearings, surveys and other analytical studies. My proposal is to transform it into the ‘CoR Platform for Inventing the Future’.

In all European regions, we require in-depth knowledge of future opportunities and means of accomplishing the desired changes. CoR is naturally an operator that has the instruments to produce this knowledge. To secure the impacts, we the members have to be active creators of the knowledge of the future – naturally by relying on the top expertise available. Markkula concludes by quoting Jean-Claude Juncker’s EPP CoR Poznan Summit speech in April: “As President of the European Commission, I will promote regional and local authorities’ involvement in decision making into the future. I will fight for a strong role for the Committee of the Regions throughout the legislative process and I will work closely with you.”

thE cor rEcEnt statEmEnts – thE athEns dEclaration “thE mid-tErm rEviEw of EuropE 2020” and thEn prEsidEnt valcÁrcEl siso’s farEwEll manifEsto “towards a EuropEan sEnatE of thE rEgions” – with thEir wEll-groundEd alignmEnts havE linkEd thE grand Eu issuEs to thE crucial rolE of rEgions in EuropEan dEcision making. wE havE to support industry, innovation and EntrEprEnEurship as thE hard Eu policiEs.

What we really need is policy innovationMarkku Markkula (FIN/EPP), Vice-President of the Committee of the Regions


On 26-27 June 2014, at its first meeting fol-lowing the election of the new European Parliament, the European Council adopt-

ed a “Strategic Agenda for the Union in Times of Change”1 (SA). The Strategic Agenda sees the new legislative cycle as “a moment of political renewal”, making it clear that “the first purpose of the Union’s work over the coming years must be to equip our so-cieties for the future and to foster confidence”. It sets five priorities: jobs, growth and competitiveness; empowering and protecting all citizens; an En-ergy Union with a forward-looking climate policy; freedom, security and justice; and the Union as a strong global actor.

With respect to growth and jobs, climate and ener-gy, employment and social inclusion, the SA refers to the ongoing review of the Europe 2020 strategy as an occasion to bring the strategy fully in line with the priorities set in the SA.

Amongst other things, the SA addresses the issue of “facilitating long-term investments”, more spe-cifically, “overdue investment needs in transport, energy and telecom infrastructure as well as in energy efficiency, innovation and research, skills, and education”.

Although the SA sets very general guidelines and does not anticipate the outcome of the review of Europe 2020, some key proposals the Committee of the Regions has made for the mid-term review of the strategy would seem to be crucial in order to translate the SA into practice.

A territorial dimension to make Europe 2020 targets more credible

The CoR’s Athens Declaration on the mid-term review of Europe 2020 and its accompanying Mid-

1 The agenda is annexed to the European Council Conclusions (26-27 June 2014) and can be found at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/143478.pdf

Term Assessment Report2 stress the need to adapt the strategy to existing regional differences in socio-economic conditions and growth potential.

To this end, the Committee advocates giving Eu-rope 2020 a territorial dimension by setting re-gionally differentiated goals and targets. So far, the EU Europe 2020 headline targets have only been differentiated at the national level and many regions have seen them as either too ambitious or not ambitious enough3. Moreover, in some cases the current national targets do not cumulatively reach the overall EU target4.

The CoR proposes that the target-setting process at national level involve the local and regional au-thorities in a mixed bottom-up and top-down ap-proach. This proposal is consistent with the place-based approach of EU cohesion policy – because it builds on specific regional assets – and would con-fer much stronger credibility on the Europe 2020 targets, at both the national and the EU levels.

Partnership and multi-level governance

The involvement of local and regional authorities and other relevant partners in the design and im-plementation of a renewed Europe 2020 strategy is the other main pillar of the CoR proposal.

To date, involvement of this kind has occurred in a number of cases. Overall, it is fair to say that it is increasing. However, the current state of affairs

2 http://portal.cor.europa.eu/europe2020/Pages/MTAR.aspx

3 As shown by the CoR Surveys on the seven Europe 2020 Flagship Initiatives (http://portal.cor.europa.eu/europe2020/Surveys/Pages/welcome.aspx)

4 The implementation of the Europe 2020 targets and Flagship Initiatives was reviewed last March in both the CoR’s Mid-term Assessment Report on Europe 2020 (http://portal.cor.europa.eu/europe2020/Pages/MTAR.aspx) and the European Commission’s Stock-taking Communication on Europe 2020 (http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/index_en.htm)

falls short of full involvement of local and regional authorities, both in terms of design and implemen-tation5.

Yet local and regional authorities have compe-tences in most policy fields relevant to the SA and Europe 2020. At the EU level, they carry out two thirds of public direct investments and one third of the overall public expenditure. Local and regional authorities have greater knowledge of the specific policy needs and potentialities of their territories than their national governments. Being closer to the public than the higher levels of government, they are also in the best possible position to listen to people’s needs and engage them in a political dialogue.

The proposals made by the Committee of the Regions include providing Europe 2020 with ad-equate funding, for instance through innovative solutions involving the private sector, improving administrative capacity and cutting red tape at all levels. The Strategic Agenda states that “the cred-ibility of the Union depends on its ability to en-sure adequate follow-up on decisions and commit-ments. This requires strong and credible institu-tions, but will also benefit from closer involvement of national parliaments”.

Indeed, multi-level governance, a territorial di-mension, adequate funding and better adminis-trative capacity will bring value added in terms of effectiveness as well as of ownership of the Europe 2020 strategy. It is a pity that the EU Heads of State and Government failed to mention regional parliaments and, more broadly, local and regional authorities, in this context. In view of the decisions to be taken by the new Commission and the Eu-ropean Council at the end of the mid-term review, expected in early 2015, the Committee of the Re-gions will set out its proposals in more detail in a “Blueprint for a renewed Europe 2020” to be pub-lished in December 2014.

5 These trends are documented in the annual CoR Monitoring Reports on Europe 2020 (http://portal.cor.europa.eu/europe2020/pub/Pages/welcome.aspx), in particular, with respect to the preparation of the EU Member States’ National Reform Programmes.

The European Council’s Strategic Agenda and Europe 2020: A regional perspective

PoliCY analYsis



< -1.75

-1.75 – -1.25

-1.25 – -0.75

-0.75 – -0.25

-0.25 – 0.25

0.25 – 0.75

0.75 – 1.25

< 1.25

Standard deviation, range from poor quality(negative) to high quality (positive)

European Quality of Government index, 2013

EU = 0

Sour

ce: E

urop

ean

Com

mis

sion

, 6th

Coh

esio

n Re

port

© EuroGeographics Association for the administrative boundaries

0 500 Km

RO

SK

BG

IT

MT

CZ

HU

SI

FRUK

LV

ES

LU

CY

NL

ATIE

DK

DE

PL

BE

SE

EL

FI

LTEE

PT

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

40 50 60 70 80 90

WB

Gov

ernm

ent e

�ect

iven

ess

inde

x,

2012

sta

ndar

dise

d so

that

EU

=0

Absorption of CohesionPolicy funding andGovernment e�ectiveness,2014

Total absorption rate of Cohesion Policy funding 2007-2013 by 21/05/2014 (%)

Absorption of funding and project selection for the 2007 - 2013programming period

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

RO SK BG IT MT

CZ HU SI FR UK LV ES LU CY NL AT IE DK

DE PL BE SE EL FI LT EE PT

EU-2

7

Absorption rate May 2014 Project selection rate by end 2013% of total Cohesion Policy funding 2007-2013


“From the beginning, we have supported the democratic process for reforming Ukraine. The future of this country is found within

Europe and European regional and local authori-ties are ready to contribute to this challenging process”, stated Michel Lebrun, President of the CoR. Ukraine signed an Association Agreement with the EU in June and the government is under-taking significant reform including the promotion of local self-governance by decentralising powers towards local authorities, as stressed by the new President Poroshenko. During his meeting with deputy Prime Minister Hroysman, President Lebrun stated that, “Your reform is ambitious be-cause it is grounded on the subsidiarity principle and inspired by the Multi-Level Governance ap-proach, which are key to assuring both territorial economic and social development and democracy. We are ready to share our experience of adminis-

trative and fiscal decentralisation, and of building closer links with citizens”.

The CoR has set out a number of proposals that can contribute to the reform process. To meet the goals, it suggests that the separation of pow-ers between State and local/regional governments should be strengthened by assuring further demo-cratic accountability to regional and provincial leaders who should be able to directly work for the territorial interests and respecting the rights of minorities. Other proposals include the realloca-tion of financial and human resources to the local and regional level; a further definition of functions and competencies of the new executive bodies of regional and district councils, a wider consultation involving all stakeholders and civil society and the possibility for regional and local authorities to use EU’s tools for territorial cooperation such as the European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation

(EGTC). The CoR also offers to the regional and local authorities of Ukraine a platform to exchange best practices in the context of the Eastern part-nership through the CORLEAP, the joint assem-bly where Ukrainian regional and local authorities count on 3 members. The CoR delegation also met members of the Ukrainian parliament as well as Mustafa Dzhemylyov leader of the Tatar commu-nity.

The CoR delegation was composed of Michel Lebrun (BE/EPP), CoR President, Arnoldas Abramavičius (LT/EPP), Mayor of Zarasai Dis-trict Municipaity, Mick Antoniw (UK/PES), Member of the National Assembly for Wales, Pavel Branda (CZ/ECR), Deputy Mayor of Ra-dlo, István Sértő-Radics (HU/ALDE), Mayor of Uszka and Uno Silber (EE/EA), Member of Kose Rural municipality Council.

Decentralisation is key for the European integration process of Ukraine

Crisis in ukraine and easTern ParTnershiP

on 4 july, michEl lEbrun, prEsidEnt of thE cor, visitEd kiEv discussing thE ukrainian govErnmEnt’s proposals for dEcEntralisation rEforms. at thE invitation of volodymyr hroysman, ukrainE’s dEputy primE ministEr, prEsidEnt lEbrun was lEading a dElEgation of cor mEmbErs.



Today, Ukraine has not made any progress in decentralisation, quite the reverse. The Orange Revolution, which raised so many

hopes and expectations, collapsed in complete disarray. The petty squabbles of its leaders, Victor Yushchenko and Julia Timoshenko, created fric-tion and, at a time when Russia was nowhere near as strong as it is now, they failed to press ahead with the process of moving towards Europe and carrying out reforms that would bring peace to the divided nation. This was the major downfall of the pro-Europeans in Ukraine.

Anyone who, like myself, paid frequent visits to western Ukraine at that time will have observed that people there had no idea of what was going on in the east of the country or of what was in the minds of the Russian population. No one ever went to that part of the country, with the excep-tion of Crimea, which was seen as a cheap domestic seaside holiday destination.

There can be no justification whatsoever for Russia’s occupation of Crimea

Obviously, there can be no justification whatsoever for Russia’s occupation of Crimea, which is in f la-grant defiance of international law. The fact that, at the start of the 21st century, part of the territory of a sovereign state has been annexed overnight cannot and will not be tolerated. Nevertheless, we should not turn a blind eye to the fact that the “west” has also made crucial mistakes: as a result of its completely f lawed neighbourhood policy with Ukraine, the European Union - alas, once again playing second fiddle to the United States - has played a decisive role in unleashing the greatest in-ternational crisis the European continent has seen since the war in the Balkans. The reasons lie in failure on the part of US and EU foreign policy to understand the history of Ukraine. With the fer-vour of missionaries determined to take over as the

“standard-bearers of European values” in all cor-ners of the continent and with all possible speed, the EU lost the ability to recognise national sen-sitivities, established power structures and long-standing features of traditional culture and iden-tity, let alone incorporate them into its strategies.

Democracy, human rights, plurality and a market economy may well be vitally important for Eu-rope, but in a country with an average monthly income of EUR 190 – with huge regional varia-tions – there are bound to be other priorities. Rus-sia’s counter-offer of economic aid worth EUR 10 billion and cut-price Russian gas was always going to outdo the European proposal. Even though the new Ukrainian government has now signed the as-sociation agreement, the country will not be a part of Europe for a very long time to come.

Given that Russia views Nato’s expansion east-wards as a breach of contract on the part of the West, it hardly equates to the ideal image of a “peace project” - as the EU would like to see it - if such an important neighbour as Russia is jealously excluded from enlargement activities that en-croach on what has historically been its sphere of influence. As a convinced European, it is depress-ing to see that instead having a calming effect, this supposedly peaceful community is actually stok-ing the tensions with what can only be described as a series of major faux pas on the part of Europe’s peace diplomats. Today, people in Ukraine are be-ing killed needlessly, and mutual threats of tougher sanctions are never going to solve the problem.

President Poroshenko’s peace plan already proposed decentralisation as a first step

Let us go back to the proposal for a federal Ukraine mentioned at the beginning. The idea will meet with scepticism from the US and the EU, al-

though President Poroshenko’s peace plan already proposed decentralisation as a first step. One thing is clear: if the Russian population in the east is to be reconciled and united with the general govern-ment, trust must be built up and their cultural, lin-guistic and economic identity and self-government within the country guaranteed. This is the only way in which Ukraine will be able to preserve its present borders. Failing this, the pressure for se-cession will continue to build up and the country will ultimately disintegrate.

Following Russia’s annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Ukraine continues to be a centralist presidential state with 24 oblasts (re-gions) and the city of Kiev, which has special sta-tus. 78% of the population is Ukrainian and 17% Russian. Ukrainians make up the majority in all the oblasts, although the Russians have a sizeable minority (around 38%) in the oblasts of Lugansk and Donetsk, the bastions of the separatist move-ment. The oblasts are merely administrative dis-tricts of the central government, with governors nominated by the president. Obviously no govern-ment, no matter what its colour, will readily con-cede this power.

Constitutional reform will have to lead to the fed-eralisation of this country, with its 46 million in-habitants, possibly in several stages. The German or Austrian models might be suitable examples. The EU could play a useful advisory role here. The population of a region should at least be able to elect its own regional parliamentary assembly and thereby indirectly have a say in the choice of re-gional government and governor. A second cham-ber would create an opportunity for the regions to participate in the country’s political life at national level. All this must be accompanied by moves to strengthen local self-government politically and financially. Present-day centralist Ukraine will either have become a federation or else risk being torn apart by its feuding factions.

prEsEnt-day ukrainE will EithEr havE to bEcomE a fEdEration or ElsE risk bEing torn apart by its fEuding factions. following thE first fEw yEars of thE transition procEss in ukrainE, thE country’s top priority must bE to rEplacE thE cEntralist statE prEsidEntial systEm with a dEmocratic fEdEral onE.

Prof. Franz Schausberger (AT/EPP), Chair of the Institute of European Regions and former Minister-President of Salzburg and Member of the CoR

Ukraine will have to become a federation, or risk disappearing


CRisis in ukRaine and easteRn paRtneRship

When I was elected chair of the Com-mittee of the Regions’ Commission for External Relations and Decentralised

Cooperation (the RELEX commission, which later became the CIVEX commission) in Febru-ary 2008, my ambition was to support our politi-cal relationships with the EU’s neighbours. Firstly, as mayor of a town very close to the border with Ukraine, I drew up an own-initiative opinion on Ukraine that pointed out Ukraine’s future in the European Union and the importance of decen-tralisation and territorial reform in that country. I was delighted when, on 26 May 2008, the Polish and Swedish foreign affairs ministers presented their plan for the Eastern Partnership to the EU’s General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels.

The Commission for External Relations and Decentralised Cooperation took this historic ini-tiative very seriously. We believed that close coop-eration with the local and regional authorities of the six post-Communist countries of the Eastern Partnership (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Geor-gia, Moldova and Ukraine) would complement EU multilateral policies targeting the other neigh-bouring countries, particularly the Northern Di-mension policy launched in 1999 which included Russia and the Euro-Mediterranean policy which, transforming the 1995 Barcelona Process, was re-vived as the Union for the Mediterranean in July 2008.

I therefore entered into political dialogue with representatives of the neighbouring countries’ authorities, and in the second half of 2008, after intense consultations, I was pleased that the po-litical representatives of all six Eastern Partner-ship countries voiced interest in and support for the establishment of a political assembly made up of representatives of the local and regional authori-ties of the EU and the Partnership countries. Fur-ther to a referral from the Czech presidency, I was also rapporteur for the Committee opinion on the Eastern Partnership. I integrated this request into our opinion, which was adopted by the assembly in April 2009, pointing out that the Committee “in-tends to develop forms of closer cooperation with countries involved in the Eastern Partnership. The creation of an Eastern Europe and South Cauca-

sus Local and Regional Assembly (EaP LRA) as the institutional platform for a regular dialogue and cooperation could be a short-term objective for a formal cooperation after having succeeded to de-velop concrete and tangible forms of cooperation” (see CdR 78/2009 fin).

It is interesting to note that the opinion adopted by the RELEX commission stressed that the crea-tion of this Assembly “is” an objective of this co-operation; an amendment tabled and passed on CoR Plenary put the verb into the conditional. However, the original proposal was in line with European policy, and in particular with the wishes of the European Commission; the Communica-tion on the Eastern Partnership (COM(2008) 823 final, adopted on 3 December 2008) stated that the Commission “invites the participation of the Committee of the Regions (…) particularly in the work under thematic platforms on Democracy, good governance and stability and on Contacts be-tween people. The Commission further invites the Committee of the Regions to establish an Eastern Europe and South Caucasus Local and Regional Assembly”.

I prefer the term “assembly” to “conference”

Having received a request to this effect from the Partnership countries, and at the express invitation of the European Commission, we were prepared to establish a political assembly of local and regional authorities during the Czech presidency in spring 2009. However, we could not secure an internal political consensus on this point, sometimes for personal or ideological reasons, sometimes owing to diverging geopolitical views which gave prefer-ence to cooperation with Russia – it must be borne in mind that Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008. Finally, some people believed strongly that an assembly with the Mediterranean countries had to be established before an assembly with the East-ern Partnership countries. The Committee finally established its institutional platform for coop-eration with the Partnership countries three years later, in September 2011, under the name “Confer-ence of the Regional and Local Authorities for the Eastern Partnership” (CORLEAP).

In view of recent developments in Ukraine I must deplore the fact that the establishment of this po-litical forum with the representatives of the towns and regions of the Eastern Partnership countries was delayed, and sometimes even questioned, not least through the change in name. I prefer the term “assembly” to “conference”: “assembly”, which is used in the context of our cooperation with the Euromed countries for which, in January 2010, we set up the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM), would convey more clearly the key political status of the Partnership countries and their future as EU members. Lastly, this terminology is a closer match for that used by the other political institutions, such as the Euro-pean Parliament which set up its Euronest Parlia-mentary Assembly bringing together MEPs and elected representatives of the EU’s eastern neigh-bours.

The current crisis in Ukraine has again under-scored the crucial importance of regionalisation and decentralisation in the eastern post-Soviet countries as key factors in geopolitical stability and economic, social and political development. As mayor of a town on the border with Ukraine, I have direct experience of the fact that internal stability in the EU is partly dependent on stabil-ity in our Eastern neighbours. Our relations with Ukraine have stepped up in recent months, dem-onstrating that we can be still more proactive and not simply respond to political events in countries bordering on the EU. It is quite clear that the cur-rent decentralisation problems are not new, and that we can be more closely associated in efforts to identify political solutions to stabilise the entire region. Nonetheless, I am pleased that the assem-bly which we first set up six years ago is now get-ting back on its feet and, after a rather stormy start, has found its place and achieved international and interinstitutional recognition. I trust that in 2015, we will be able to further develop our relationship with our eastern partners and with the European Commission, the Council and the European Par-liament. I believe that we should also organise a joint meeting with the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, which could focus on developing cross-border and regional cooperation and on territorial reform and decentralisation in the Partnership countries.

István Sertő-Radics (HU/ALDE), Mayor of Uszka

The first steps of cooperation with the Eastern Partnership countries



The Eastern Partnership, launched officially under the Czech Presidency during spring 2009 and supported by the Committee of

the Regions at its Prague Summit in May 2009, is an instrument for supporting closer cooperation between the EU and its eastern European partners (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine). The recent developments in these countries, especially in Ukraine, call for the East-ern Partnership to be strengthened so that a clear vision can be established of where the partnerships will lead to and what the ultimate purpose is. In the case of Ukraine, in my opinion, this would be the goal of full EU membership.

A very important aspect of the Eastern Partner-ship is its territorial dimension. The Committee of Regions could and should be more active, espe-cially in the two following areas:

• Assistancewithreformsleadingtodecentral-isation and democratisation;

• Cross-borderandregionalcooperationespe-cially in people-to-people activities.

The assistance with reforms leading to decen-tralisation in Ukraine was officially offered during the CoR mission to Ukraine in the beginning of June this year. I had the honour of accompany-ing the newly elected CoR president during the meeting and also participating in the round table discussion on decentralisation and territorial co-operation chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine – Minister of Regional Development

Mr. Volodymyr Hroysman. I have been impressed by the strong determination to carry out the need-ed reforms in a very quick manner. Nevertheless, reforms should not be carried out without wide consultation with all stakeholders – especially regional and municipal self-governments. We have designed a number of multi-level govern-ance models in the European Union. There is no perfect blueprint for decentralisation that would fit Ukraine perfectly. However, we can help our Ukrainian partners to learn methods that could be applied to devising an acceptable solution. Our individual regions and municipalities can also play a very important role by setting up specific bilat-eral cooperation programmes. For example, my re-gion in the Czech Republic, the Liberec region, is now setting up a cooperation programme with the Ivano-Frankivska oblast (region) in Ukraine. Mr. Martin Půta, the president of the Liberec region and member of the CoR has stated that: “We have benefited for a long time from partnerships with regions from the western part of Europe. We now feel that the time has come for us to give this as-sistance to the regions in the East that face reforms that we went though not so long ago.” We are plan-ning to organise internships for administration officials, as well as cooperating in other strategic areas such as education and tourism.

Cross-border and regional cooperation

This brings me to the second important area: Cross-border and regional cooperation. This can play a very important role, not only in terms of economic integration, but above all, in the devel-

opment of civil society. This is true already for the Ukraine-EU border. Cross-border coopera-tion at the lowest level of governance will also play a crucial role in rebuilding the eastern regions of Ukraine and in overcoming prejudices on both sides of these eastern regions’ borders (hopefully, we will still be talking about the current borders and not new borders caused by the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russian Federation). In the EU, we have long standing experiences with this; the first euroregion was established on the Dutch-German border already in 1958 and since then, these permanent cooperation structures together with funding from the INTERREG programmes became a very important tool in overcoming the dividing character of borders and also in the co-operation of citizens. Association of European border regions (AEBR) and DG REGIO are the pool of expertise that could be shared with our eastern partners. It is therefore crucial that coop-eration programmes function well, are tailor-made to specific local needs, have decentralised manage-ment and also have sufficient resources. Educa-tion and culture are also very important areas of cooperation. Therefore, it is important to keep programmes such as Erasmus+ open to partners from Eastern Partnership countries.

I hope that the Conference of the Regional and Local Authorities for the Eastern Partnership (CORLEAP) will work more intensively during the upcoming new CoR mandate and its work will lead to many specific projects that would help specific municipalities, regions and above all their inhabitants.

Pavel Branda (CZ/ECR), Deputy Mayor of Rádlo

Time to enhance the Eastern Partnerships’regional dimension – the Ukrainian example

EU-Ukraine cooperation

The principal objective of EU-Ukraine coopera-tion is to bring Ukraine closer to the EU and foster political relations as well as economic integration through the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership. EU assistance to Ukraine is delivered through bilateral and regional Annual Action Programmes (AAPs).

Until 2013, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) was a key finan-cial and cooperation instrument. The new Euro-pean Neighbourhood Instrument is the main EU instrument in 2014-2020.

Ukraine benefits from various regional coopera-tion programmes (mainly in education, transport or border assistance), cross-border cooperation and other programmes focused on education (Er-asmus+), institution building (TAIEX, SIGMA) and investments (Neighbourhood Investment Fa-cility, NIF).

In addition to the ENI instrument, Ukraine is also eligible for funding under the thematic pro-grammes, notably the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), In-strument contributing to Stability and Peace, Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation as well as the Development Cooperation Instru-

ment. Thematic Instruments provide financial support to civil society and a broader set of non-state actors and local authorities in Ukraine. Since 2011, the civil society organisations also benefit from the Neighbourhood Civil Soci-ety Facility (CSF). The ENPI bilateral assistance committed to Ukraine in 2007-2013 amounts to 1 billion EUR.

The European Parliament gave its consent to the EU-Ukraine Association agreement, which in-cludes a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA), on 16 September. At the same time, the Agreement was also ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament in Kiev.


With support from the West, acting gov-ernment ministers were quick to bring in new laws and arrangements to estab-

lish processes for voting in both a president and local mayors. The CoR was privileged to send a delegation to Kiev in July and to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister Volodymyr Hroysman at its April plenary session.

The electoral monitoring team of 20, including 6 CoR members, was set up by the Congress of Eu-rope. Several of its members had previous experi-ence of Ukraine. Previous electoral missions had strongly criticised administrative arrangements, heavy-handedness and poor practice. On this oc-casion, there was a clear difference in both the pub-

lic mood and electoral practice. It was also closely monitored by members of the international com-munity, many of whom were hoping for improve-ments on past performance.

Unfortunately, because of the security situation, we were mostly assigned to non-conflict areas to focus on locations also holding local and mayoral elections. Some monitors did travel to eastern con-flict areas and were kidnapped; in other areas, the polling centres were attacked and damaged. We managed to observe around 120 polling stations and the differences were palpable. There was a mood of patriotism, with many national f lags in evidence. Polling staff had decorated the build-ings with f lowers and many were wearing blue and

yellow or national dress. Turnout was up, people queued up to vote, brought their children along and many voted for the first time.

The mood for change has resulted in a new presi-dent, some new councillors and mayors, and the first steps towards a more democratic future. Ukraine still has many problems to address: the economy, agriculture, dependence on Russia for energy, its desire to be Europe-facing, Crimea, and what to do about the tented Maidan square village which still blocks a large section of the city centre. The CoR has publicly expressed its support for our Ukrainian neighbours and I hope that our elector-al monitoring work has contributed towards help-ing its democratic processes.

mEmbErs of thE ElEctoral monitoring tEam that includEd 6 cor mEmbErs will rEcall that thE crisis in ukrainE had rEsultEd in mass protEsts by rEsidEnts facing armEd policE in maidan squarE, thE flight to moscow of formEr prEsidEnt yanukovych, and thE fact that kiEv had bEEn without a mayor for somE timE. anothEr factor was thE illEgal annExation of thE crimEa by russian troops and

thE dEclaration of autonomous statEs in sEvEral EastErn towns by russia-backEd militia.

CRisis in ukRaine and easteRn paRtneRship

Cllr Doreen Huddart (UK/ALDE), Member of the Newcastle City Council

Supporting democratic processes in Ukraine by elections’ monitoring

EURONEST Parliament Assembly

The Delegation to the EURONEST Parliamen-tary Assembly (Euronest PA) has been created by decision of the European Parliament on 6 May

2009 and constituted in the beginning of the 7th legislature (end of September 2009). The Assem-bly, after one and a half year of difficult discus-sions, has been established on 3 May 2011 as the parliamentary dimension of the Eastern Partner-

ship, the policy launched by the European Union for its Eastern neighbours, to bring them closer, avoiding new dividing lines, and to conclude far reaching Association Agreements, including Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas. The Euro-pean Parliament had called for the creation of the Assembly already during its 6th legislature. The Euronest PA is currently composed of 110 Mem-bers: 60 Members from the European Parliament (this is also the number of Members of the current EP delegation) and 10 from each of the following countries (the Eastern Partners): Armenia, Azer-baijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. For politi-cal reasons, it was not possible, to date, to admit to the PA any Belarusian Delegation. The Euronest PA aims to be the institution for multilateral par-liamentary dialogue and for exchange among the Eastern partners and between the MEPs and their Eastern partner countries’ homologues in several areas of common interest: stability, democracy, legal and standards approximation, trade, energy, people-to-people contacts and many others. The new chairperson of the Euronest PA is Heidi Hau-tala from Finland.

Heidi Hautala, MEP, Chairperson of the EURONEST Parliamentary Assembly



The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and its instruments remain a structure within which the European Union coop-

erates with its partners to establish democracy, strengthen sustainable and socially inclusive eco-nomic growth and build security. Last evolution of the ENP shows that the challenges facing partner countries are increasingly diverse. This requires policies more closely geared to the expectations and needs of all the partners.

To ensure that neighbourhood policy is as effec-tive as possible, cooperation between the EU and ENP countries should be “tailor-made”, with a high degree of f lexibility and sensitivity to ongoing political, social and economic changes. In view of this, both development priorities and specific tasks should be framed not only at EU and national level but also at local and regional authority level, with the involvement of civil society in the broad sense of the term.

During the drafting of my opinion, special atten-tion has been paid to:

• strengtheningtheregionalandlocaldimen-sions of the ENP;

• emphasisingtheactiveroleplayedbylocalandregional authorities and multilevel govern-ance in the process of working towards “deep democracy”;

• theneedfordecentralisation,particularlyinthe area of taxation;

• emphasising Committee of the Regions(CoR) involvement in the ENP implementa-tion process;

• stressinglocalandregionalauthorityinvolve-ment in the work of “thematic platforms”;

• strengtheningtheactiveroleoftheCoRinthefunding allocation process, and developing appropriate cooperation mechanisms with the Commission in this field;

• promoting bottom-up initiatives and sup-porting cooperation between regional and lo-cal authorities in ENP and EU countries;

• takingstepstoconsolidatedialogueaswellasthe exchange of information and know-how;

• using existing support instruments (e.g.TAIEX, Twinning) at sub-national level.

European Neighbourhood Policy is an interactive initiative, requiring the involvement of all stake-holders, the EU and its neighbours, based on the jointly agreed principles of “more for more” and “shared responsibility”. Neighbouring countries which are ready to carry out domestic reforms are given an opportunity to cooperate with the EU on such reforms, and are offered the prospect of EU political support as well as technical and financial assistance.

Olgierd Geblewicz (PL/EPP), CoR rapporteur on “European Neighbourhood Policy Package”

ENP requires “tailor-made” policies


In April, the European Commission published its Green Paper on mobile health (mHealth). Now The Committee of the rRegions is in the

middle of the process of drafting an opinion on this subject. mHealth refers to medical and health-related services that can be accessed from mobile devices such as mobile phones, tablet devices com-puters, patient monitoring devices units, and other wireless devices. Within mHealth there are offers a variety of solutions to make life easier for individu-als by increasing their knowledge of and participa-tion involvement in their own health. Theseis may includevolve, for example, services where a patients can easily read their heart rate, blood sugar level, blood pressure and body temperature or solutions where the user receives reminders about taking medication intake or advice on dietary and exercise advice. Mm-hHealth solutions can also create bet-

ter working conditions for health sector staff and it can promote economic growth.

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the Commission’s Green Paper on mHealth as an im-portant documents and assumes is taking the po-litical leadership on behalf of the European regions on how to deliver innovative mHealth solutions to better respond more effectively to the changing and diverse needs of Europe’s citizens and patients, depending on their individual health and social situation, capabilities, and motivation desire to be-come actively involved in their own treatment. The Committee agrees with the Commission’s assess-ment that mHealth solutions have the potential to improve the health and wellbeing of European citizens whilst creating growth and jobs. However, the move towards electronic and mobile health will

not succeed if the general public and the health professionals do not have trust in the new tools. Issues asurrounding privacy, confidentiality, data protection and liability must be addressed and con-tinuously monitored to protect sensitive data from hacking, leaksing, privacy breaches or any other form of misuse.

This is hHowever, these are not insurmountable obstacles. If we look at the development within mobile banking, it is clear that Europeans increas-ingly appreciate the ease of access to their finan-ciale information details and are ready for a similar straightforwardness approach regarding in terms of access to their medical appointments and health data.

Martin Andreasson (SV/EPP), Member of the Regional Assembly of Västra Götaland

Green Paper on mobile Health

At a time when the latest IPCC scientific data is warning us that global warming and its effects are worsening, the draft opinion

which I am drawing up for the Committee of the Regions is urging the EU to adopt a winning triad of climate and energy objectives to 2030, all of them binding, namely:

• a50%reductioningreenhousegasemissionsfrom 1990 levels;

• renewables to represent 40% of the energymix, based on national targets;

• a40%reductioninprimaryenergyconsump-tion compared with 2005 achieved through efficiency gains, also based on national targets.

These three goals are needed to give us a chance of avoiding a catastrophic temperature rise of more than 2°C and to achieve the EU’s long-term objec-tive (an 80-95% reduction in greenhouse gas emis-sions). This is the strong political signal that the local and regional authorities are expecting from Europe. On the strength of these objectives, the EU should be ready to negotiate a global climate agreement with a view to the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21).

The draft opinion also stresses the key role of local and regional authorities in drawing up and imple-menting climate and energy policies. The UNDP notes that more than 70% of climate change reduc-

tion measures and up to 90% of climate change adaptation measures are undertaken by local au-thorities.

Their work cannot have an optimum impact un-less it is acknowledged on the basis of long-term financial resources and a mandate for action. This is why the Committee of the Regions is calling on the EU to recognise the role of local and regional authorities and look to them to help meet climate and energy challenges.

2030 climate and energy action frameworkAnnabelle Jaeger (FR/PES), Regional Councillor of Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur

raPPorTeurs have Their saY

in this rEgular column, mEmbErs to thE committEE of thE rEgion writE in thEir own words what motivatEs thEm to takE on thE rolE of rapportEur for thE policy arEa that thEy arE writing thEir opinion. thE following op-Eds focus on a divErsE numbEr of topics from 2030 climatE and EnErgy action framEwork to post-2015 hyogo framEwork.



In proposing the creation of a “European plat-form to improve cooperation in order to prevent and deter undeclared work”, the European Par-

liament and the Council have shone a spotlight on a set of problems affecting the European Union in terms of its standing, migration, labour market freedom, fiscal policy and social security. In many cases, people who work illegally are also victims of human trafficking, which puts the issue of unde-clared work on par with the fight against organised crime. As the rapporteur of the Committee of the Regions, my feeling is that the EU’s local and re-gional authorities welcome and support this initia-tive, which is meant to set out a clear mission and objectives, to divide up responsibilities and tasks between the EU and its Member States, between the different decision-making authorities at na-tional level and between employers and workers, and to disseminate resources, ideas, general infor-mation and the latest statistical data.

There are a number of key questions that need to be answered: will the European platform’s activi-

ties be centralised or decentralised? Will Member State participation be mandatory or voluntary? Will new administrative structures need to be set up at national and European level, and, if so, what sort? Other points also need to be clarified: would it make sense to introduce a single system and methodology to measure undeclared work across all Member States? Is there a need to provide for a common legal framework and a single point of contact in each Member State? These are the main questions and areas in need of clarification – how they are answered will depend in large part on our vision of the EU’s future, including the degree of federalisation and the functions performed by its Member States on the one hand and its central in-stitutions on the other. However, there is one con-sideration that does not seem to have been given enough attention so far: what role will the EU’s regions and municipalities play in achieving these European objectives? As the elected power that is closest to the people, local and regional authori-ties are an important player in achieving the spe-cific targets set out in the Europe 2020 strategy.

We would like to think that the recently elected European Parliament will cooperate pragmatically with the Committee of the Regions, which is the spokesperson for local and regional authorities.

Local and regional authorities are among the play-ers with the greatest interest in preventing unde-clared work, for a number of reasons. Firstly, failure to collect personal income tax represents a substan-tial loss of revenue for them. They are also forced to allocate additional resources to paying out social benefits to people who lie about their employment activities to secure various allowances and other advantages. It is a well-known fact that a signifi-cant section of the population in EU countries lives on these allowances, and has no interest in taking up paid work, or rather, in this case, declared paid work. A large number of people who are officially unemployed thus benefit, in one way or another, from various sources of additional income. Thirdly, and finally, local authorities are confronted most directly with the challenges posed, within their boundaries, by large groups of people who system-

Dainis Turlais (LV/ALDE), Chairman of the Riga City Council’s committee on Security, public order and corruption prevention

Fight against undeclared work

Tourism is an important economic activity throughout Europe, but its importance is especially apparent in coastal and maritime

regions: almost 40% of Europeans live in coastal areas, which are also the areas where 63% of Eu-ropeans spend their holidays. Tourism is thus the main source of income and a leading driver of the economy in many of these regions.

Moreover, according to the European Commission, coastal and maritime tourism is the largest maritime activity in Europe, employing almost 3.2 million peo-ple and generating EUR 183 billion in gross value added - this represents over one third of the whole EU

maritime economy. The fact that the Commission has presented the first strategy for growth and employ-ment in this sector thus demonstrates its importance in the current EU economic context. It also stresses the untapped potential it offers, if supported by more integrated EU policies and closer involvement of Eu-rope’s coastal local and regional authorities.

In my report, I sought to stress the fundamental role which local and regional authorities play in planning and implementing tourism policy, and to highlight the need to mainstream coastal and maritime tourism into other relevant EU policies such as IT connectiv-ity, transport, the environment, safety, consumer pro-

tection and labour mobility. I also drew attention to the necessary linkage between coastal and maritime tourism and environmental sustainability issues. This is crucial if such tourism is to continue and to be sus-tainable in its turn.

The report also focuses on the question of seasonal-ity - an aspect where accessibility is vitally important, especially in the case of island and remote regions. Similarly, products and skills need to be upgraded so that, especially when it comes to youth employment and entrepreneurship, tourism can help provide eco-nomic growth on a competitive basis throughout the year.

Vasco Cordeiro (PT/PES), President of the Azores Regional Government

Tourism is the largest maritime activity in Europe


RappoRteuRs Have tHeiR say

atically break the law, and who have effectively el-evated this behaviour to a way of life.

Statistics indicate that the number of undeclared workers varies from one EU region to the next. It does not just depend on the weight of the tax burden, enforcement and other factors within the power of public authorities, but also reflects other factors, such as the relative size of the immigrant

population, the distribution of jobs between sec-tors and the extent to which they are seasonal, to mention just a few. Consequently, the fight against undeclared work will have to take account of the circumstances specific to each local and regional authority individually, rather than across all the countries concerned. Bearing all this in mind, the Committee of the Regions believes that repre-sentatives from among its own ranks should play

a role in setting up the platform, as equal partners alongside the national implementing authorities designated by the Member States and the Com-mission, to see to it that local and regional interests are taken into account when addressing these prob-lems, and to ensure a balance between the points of view of the EU’s central institutions and those of its constituent countries.

“Challenged regions are crucial for sus-tainable and balanced growth and jobs. They fulfil essential tasks for the bal-

anced development of the EU, notably through ac-cess to raw material, agriculture, fisheries, environ-mental protection, tourism and leisure opportuni-ties. Promoting economic growth in challenged regions would also positively impact employment rates and contribute to the effective functioning of the internal market and the territorial cohesion of the Union as a whole,” said Cllr Keymer. Adopted during the 11-12 July CoR Territorial Cohesion Policy Commission (COTER) meeting, the draft opinion makes 4 key proposals. It calls for the Commission to publish a Green Paper on mobility, calls for the adoption of territorial impact assess-ments, suggests financing solutions and innovative tools and calls for special consideration to be given in the EU’s rules to ports and airports.

“We need a Green Paper on mobility”, stated Cllr. Keymer. He further explained that “mobility chal-lenges impact employment and growth. Through the Green Paper, mobility issues in challenged re-gions should be better recognised and addressed in the full range of the EU’s policies and programmes. In developing the Green Paper, attention must of course be paid to where non-legislative actions could add value to national and sub-national ini-tiatives”. “We also need Territorial impact assess-ments. This would give us the opportunity to take account of the territorial impact of the EUs mobil-ity policies in challenges regions and enable us to better address the challenges”.

On the subject of financing Cllr Keymer noted that he “welcomes the inclusion of a specific the-matic objective on Sustainable Transport in the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF) 2014-20 programme. However, the pressing mo-bility needs should be addressed by the Member

States and ESIF management authorities. It is necessary to factor these in when defining partner-ship agreements and operational programmes for implementing ESIF”. Cllr Keymer emphasized that “other EU funds, European Investment Bank funding, and private sector financing could also play a stronger supporting role”. “Local and region-al authorities will be the key driving force behind many innovations necessary to secure sustainable mobility as a pre-requisite to regional growth and jobs” stated Cllr Keymer. Cllr Keymer further ex-plained that to overcome regional challenges, “new approaches to funding transport in challenged regions are needed. These approaches need to be supported by new tools such as intelligent trans-

port systems and improved ICT or on-demand transport”.

Also, Cllr Keymer underlined that “ports and air-ports play an important role in the development of challenged regions. For island communities and outermost regions, such connections are the only possible means of transport and are essential to their very survival. They are also essential for ena-bling the region to connect, both to their respective countries and to the rest of the EU”. On the sub-ject of what measures could be taken, Cllr Keymer argued that “to assist challenged regions, special consideration should be given to them in the EU’s rules relating to ports and airports, such as public procurement and concessions rules and in the EU’s state aid rules governing ports, aviation, and Ser-vices of General Economic Interest”. Expressing concerns over the availability of funds for ports and airports, Cllr Keymer also added, “it is regrettable that the restriction imposed by the European Re-gional Development Fund for the financing period 2014-2020 in most cases prohibits, in practice, the financing of airport infrastructure”.

While welcoming the work of the European Com-mission, Cllr Keymer underlined that “greater at-tention needs to be paid to the role of challenged regions and that all challenged regions of all sizes should be taken into consideration when promot-ing mobility.” The opinion is due to be at the 7-8 October CoR Plenary session.

cllr gordon kEymEr cbE (uk/Ecr), as thE cor’s rapportEur on “mobility in dEmographically and gEographically challEngEd rEgions”, undErlinEd thE importancE of gEographically and dEmographically challEngEd rEgions for thE balancEd and sustainablE dEvElopmEnt of thE Eu.

Gordon Keymer CBE (UK/ECR), Member of Tandridge District Council

Mobility in demographically and geographically challenged regions

“It is regrettable that the restriction imposed by the

European Regional Development Fund for the financing period

2014-2020 in most cases prohibits, in practice, the financing of airport

infrastructure.”



The European Union is currently going through a period of profound economic change. What in the 1980s turned out to be

a temporary crisis involving the adjustment of Eu-ropean economies is now happening on a perma-nent basis; it is a recurrent theme of economic and social life. The public sector is a key contributor to gross capital formation in the form of tangible and intangible investment.

Efforts are needed to ensure more transparent and efficient use of public funds, to maximise the return on public investment, its contribution to growth and its ability to leverage private invest-

ment. As part of efforts to diversify financing sources for the European economy, the best possi-ble conditions must be put in place for the develop-ment of European capital markets, with financial instruments structured so as to enable investment in listed SMEs. Heavy dependence on bank inter-mediation, combined with bank deleveraging and reduced investor confidence, has reduced funding for all sectors of the economy.

“I am confident that suitable legal regulation of the European economy’s long-term economic financing system will overcome risk aversion among potential investors. Long-term financing sources should be

targeted at economic projects, at the same time as ref lecting the climate and energy package for 2030,” said Mr Krochmal. “In this opinion I advo-cate for conditions to enable long-term financing of the economy by insurance companies. This could involve investments in infrastructure, SMEs and social enterprises.”

The European Union has acted with determina-tion to reverse these trends and restore the condi-tions for sustainable growth and investment. The ability of the financial system to channel funds into long-term investments will be essential in securing Europe’s position on a sustainable growth path.

Long-term financing of the European economy

Witold Krochmal (PL/EA), Member of the City and Municipal Council of Wołów

during thE octobEr plEnary sEssion thE cor will adopt thE opinion drawn up by witold krochmal (pl/Ea), mEmbEr of thE city and municipal council of wołów, on long-tErm financing of thE EuropEan Economy.

The European project makes sense, and Eu-rope must be able to continue to be a global player. To this end, it needs to be competitive

and able to attract skilled people from the differ-ent continents. No-one can deny that we are faced with a problem of population ageing, and that if communities are not able to replenish their popu-lations we will soon be encountering difficulties at every level right from the outset. We cannot expect miracles when it comes to the active involvement of all members of the public in the European project. Specific policies, including the migration policy, can and must be discussed. One thing is certain: Europe cannot remain inward-looking. It must work together with other people, other cultures and other communities.

Europe is now becoming more diverse and embrac-ing diversity, it is therefore a good thing that we

are rubbing shoulders in our cities, municipalities and regions with fellow citizens who were once mi-grants or whose parents or grandparents were born on other continents or in other places. We must find ways of involving immigrants and integrating them into our societies properly, fostering a culture of solidarity and responsibility. We must not for-get that other new continents also came into being thanks to the sweat and toil of people from Europe who decided to put down roots, start families and find work outside the Old World. Together with members of the public, we must ref lect on and share our concept of immigration, and establish bridges, synergies, reciprocity and dialogue. We must do away with damning stereotypes of immi-grants and enable them to play a full role as citizens in their host societies. Lisbon is one example, but there are many others across Europe.

We must demonstrate more and to greater effect the added value that immigrants bring to our soci-eties. The Mediterranean is a place where civilisa-tions and cultures meet and is a forum for exchange. We must be able to exploit all the potential that contact between people can bring. The Committee of the Regions’ Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM) is a valuable forum for promoting this dialogue and exchange of culture, which we all want to see. Like other Mediterranean countries and cities, Italy has always been a place where communities and cultures meet. I hope that the Italian Presidency of the Council of the Euro-pean Union will give substance to a more cohesive Europe that is more aware of the importance of immigrants for all of us, both Europeans and non-Europeans.

We must do away with damning stereotypes of immigrants

António Costa (PT/PES), Chair of the CIVEX commission, CoR rapporteur for the management of migration in the Mediterranean (ARLEM)


On 7-8 October 2014, the opinion of Povilas Žagunis (LT/EA), Member of Panevėžys District Municipal Council and Mayor

will be discussed during the plenary session.

The European Alliance rapporteur’s opinion con-siders the topic of aid schemes for the supply of fruit and vegetables, bananas and milk in educational es-tablishments. The schemes, established to promote the consumption of fruit and vegetable and milk products are highly important for the economy and public health. During last years, a lot was done to promote the schemes, but unfortunately, declining trends continue to proceed.

Mr Žagunis is critical of the European Commis-sion’s proposal under the new scheme to limit milk distribution, considers that minimally-processed milk products without harmful additives (natural unsweetened milk products) such as yoghurt or fresh cheeses should be also eligible for aid. “With no doubt Europe is diversified, and thank to this fact, we should consider the introduction of ad-ditional criteria on which we could base national allocations for the school milk and fruit scheme”, suggests Žagunis.

Mr Žagunis, aware of the risk of fixing amount of EU aid per portion that could lead to compromises

on the quality, puts impact on the quality of goods delivered to schools and calls on all interested par-ties to take measures to guarantee and check if the agricultural products delivered to schools are of sufficiently high quality. The rapporteur also calls on the Commission and the Member States to launch more comprehensive debate among experts and policy-makers on legal options for favouring fruit, vegetables and milk products sourced region-ally including possible exemptions from public pro-curement laws and any amendments to them.

Cllr Harvey Siggs (UK/ECR), the CoR rap-porteur on “Post-2015 Hyogo Framework for Action: managing risks to achieve resil-

ience”, welcomed the results of the first Preparatory Committee meeting where the new Framework was discussed and encouraged a greater local ap-proach.

“Building resilience to disasters is a fundamental necessity for sustainable growth and jobs. We risk losing everything if our communities and infra-structures cannot withstand disasters. Disasters also know no borders. We must think local and act global”, said Cllr Siggs.” The Hyogo Frame-work is a 10 year international disaster risk reduc-tion plan. The current framework runs till 2015 and a new Framework is due to be adopted at the United Nations-led negotiations at the 3rd World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai (Japan) on 14-18 March, 2015. Preparatory and consultative meetings are taking place in the run up to March 2015. Following the first meeting of the Preparatory Committee on 24-25 July, a pre-zero draft Framework has been produced. The pre-zero draft is being used as a basis for open-ended infor-

mal consultative meetings and to prepare the zero-draft in time for the second Preparatory meeting due to take place in Geneva, Switzerland on 17-18 November, 2014.

“While the pre-zero-draft provides a strong basis for discussions, it needs to have a stronger local and bottom-up approach” said Cllr Siggs. “It needs to look more at the risk caused by poor communica-tion and management, the risk created by trends such as urban sprawl and urbanisation and the risk of insurances potentially becoming unavailable or unaffordable in certain areas as a result of increas-ing risks. The pre-zero-draft also needs to look more closely at the greater risk faced by geographi-cally and demographically challenged regions, by coastal and maritime regions and areas of special environmental value.”

Cllr Siggs also expressed his disappointment that the pre-zero draft asks for risk-informed invest-ment and strengthened financial instruments at the national and international level but does not ask for this at the local and regional level. “The responsibility for civil protection is often devolved

to the local and regional level without sufficient funds to meet the needs. This needs to change.”In its opinion adopted during the June 2014 plenary session, the CoR underlines the need for a focus on prevention, preparedness and resilience and under-lines the key role of local and regional authorities. “Local and regional authorities are the frontline of disaster management, responsible for prevention and immediate response and rescue operations”, explained Cllr Siggs.

Among the key recommendations of the CoR was the call for an open data policy, further collabora-tion and investment in information systems and investment in training and practicing for disasters. The CoR also underlined the important role that the private sector can play in disaster data collec-tion, insurance schemes and building resilience. Another key recommendation was that protocols are put in place to ensure better coordination be-tween regional and national disaster risk policies and plans, improved integration of local policy-makers and planners and agreed escalation pro-cedures for disasters that impact more than one regional area.

Povilas Žagunis (LT/EA), Member of Panevėžys District Municipal Council and Mayor

National allocations of the school milk and fruit scheme

Harvey Siggs (UK/ECR), Member of Somerset County Council

Managing risks to achieve resilience

RappoRteuRs Have tHeiR say



Jiří Buriánek takes over as Secretary-General

On 1 September, Jiří Buriánek succeeded Daniel Janssens and Gerhard Stahl as the head of the ad-ministration of the Committee of the Regions.

On taking office he said: “Following the recent Eu-ropean Parliament elections it is obvious to all of us working for the EU that we are restarting our work within a new political setting. The citizens of Europe are calling for a shift in respect to their involvement in areas that matter most to them. This is a clear mandate to all European institu-tions and bodies, and notably the Committee of the Regions”.

Jiří Buriánek, who holds Czech and German citi-zenships, was formally appointed by the Commit-tee’s Bureau members on 24 June 2014. He leaves his post as Director at the Secretariat-General of the Council of the European Union where he was responsible for research, industry and innovation, as well as for network industries (energy, trans-port, telecommunications & information society) and European infrastructures (Connecting Eu-rope Facility and Trans-European Networks).

Prior to this, he served as Enlargement Manager at the European Commission’s Directorate General Joint Research Centre and was Secretary-General of PostEurop - the European branch of the United Nation’s Special Agency, Universal Postal Union representing, at that time, 42 European Universal Services Providers from across the EU. During his illustrious career Dr. Buriánek also held numerous management positions in large scale public sector entities in Germany. His education includes a law degree, a PhD in European Law and a Master of Business Administration with a focus on Informa-tion Technology and Telecommunication Policy. The Committee of the Regions’ Secretary-Gener-al is appointed by the assembly’s Bureau members for a mandate of five years.

The 6th Cohesion Forum in Brussels

“Cohesion policy succeeded in reducing the impact of the crisis but development gaps are on the rise again and the unemployment tragedy has not yet been addressed. We must all shape and implement the 2014-2020 policy framework with due regard for this challenge and with the involvement of all partners at national, regional and local level.” This was the key message delivered by the President of the Committee of the Regions, Michel Lebrun, at the 6th Cohesion Forum in Brussels on 8 and 9 September.

During a lively discussion with EU policy-makers and stakeholders, the CoR president stressed the key role played by the EU budget, which covered 60%-80% of investment by regions and cities in the last three years. The impact of Growth and Sta-bility Pact expenditure ceilings on re-launching investment and, in particular, on the implementa-tion of cohesion policy programmes was one of the most debated topics of the forum. The discussion also involved the CoR rapporteur for the 6th Co-hesion Report, Nicola Zingaretti (IT/PES) and Jyrki Katainen, Vice-President of the European Commission for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro, who opposed the proposed soften-ing in the current EU provisions on budgetary discipline.

The CoR president highlighted the role of regional and local authorities in shaping and implement-ing the investment plans funded by EU cohesion policy, as well as the need to improve the participa-tion of regions and cities in EU macro-economic policy coordination and the European Semester. The national reform programmes cannot be de-veloped and implemented successfully without the full contribution of regions and cities. Without this new approach and genuine multilevel gov-ernance, most of the EU growth targets will not be reached.

Michel Lebrun meets President Barroso

Michel Lebrun held talks on 18 September with the European Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, to discuss how best to exploit regional and cohesion policy to boost public investment and de-liver jobs and growth. He stressed that investment made by regions and cities to match EU cohesion policy funds should be safeguarded and excluded from the EU’s Growth and Stability Pact ceilings.

With economic growth topping the political agen-da, the talks focused on the pivotal role of EU re-gional funding. Referring to the recent European Commission 6th Cohesion Report President Leb-run said, “EU Cohesion Policy is one of the main instruments for many local and regional authori-ties in Europe to help get smart investment back on track. The recent Cohesion Report demonstrated the critical role it plays in the process of conver-gence between the EU’s regions. The report also proved the value EU regional funds have played in fighting the crisis. Nevertheless, regional dispari-ties across Europe have grown”.

President Lebrun noted that slow growth was proving a barrier for local and regional authorities to free up resources for investment and reiterated the CoRs’ call made in its Turin Declaration to ex-clude all national and regional co-funding of EU-supported investments (including projects under European Commission President-elect Juncker’s investment plan) from the deficit indicators used under the stability and growth pact.

Following their meeting, Barroso and Lebrun joined representatives from seven major EU local and regional associations for a working lunch. The meeting took place in the framework of the annual “Structured Dialogue” which brings together the European Commission, the CoR and Local and Regional Authority Associations as part of efforts to strengthen relations between the EU and repre-sentatives of local and regional authorities.

brief news and evenTs

Michel Lebrun and Jyrki KatainenJiří Buriánek President Barroso and Michel Lebrun


BRief News aNd eveNts

Local and regional authorities are in an extremely delicate phase

In its 6th Cohesion Report published in July, the European Commission paints a stark picture of a Union where one in four Europeans live in a region that is lagging behind and where development gaps have started to widen again after a decade of con-vergence. Within this context the EU’s Structural Funds are often the only safeguard against plum-meting public investment which fell by an average of 20% between 2008 and 2013 and by as much as 60% in Greece, Ireland and Spain.

Nicola Zingaretti (IT/PES), President of the Lazio Region and Committee of the Regions’ rap-porteur on the Sixth Cohesion Report, recalled that the report clearly illustrates the key role played by European regional policy in dealing with the crisis and shows how this policy is increasingly use-ful in shaping and implementing an EU’s growth strategy, strengthening a cultural trend which now needs to be made concrete through the actions and choices of governments. The priorities identified over the next few years (from energy efficiency to SMEs, from employment to social inclusion) form a strategic framework which seeks to exit the cri-sis with more modern and efficient human, infra-structure and business capital. This is why we are now at a crossroads.

“The most serious development to emerge dur-ing the 2007-2013 period concerns the employ-ment rate, workers’ skills and the average level of education”, said the rapporteur. “With regard to the efficient use of the funds, local and regional authorities are in an extremely delicate phase dur-ing which the 2007-2013 investment plans must be completed, following a review made necessary by the crisis. At the same time, the 2014-2020 invest-ment programmes will have to be launched. These are a significant opportunities to promote innova-tive and inclusive growth. However, they will have to contend with more stringent rules which have been exacerbated by the recession”.

There is not just a Europe of States; there is also, and to an increasing extent, a Europe of Regions.

Because of its financial dimension, its aspirations in terms of competitiveness and the fight against exclusion, and its multilevel structure, the Europe of Regions is at the centre of the European social model. “Working towards an effective cohesion policy therefore means working to secure more competitive, fairer regions while also building a more definite and inf luential European identity”, concluded Zingaretti.

Innovative solutions for the European industrial Renaissance

The drive for industrialisation has become a neces-sity for the European Union, especially in those regions that are still classified as less developed or those that are still looking to recover from the economic and financial crisis. The EPP Group in the Committee of the Regions will therefore hold an external seminar dedicated to “Innovative solu-tions for the European industrial Renaissance” in Badajoz on 24 October, on the invitation of José Antonio Monago Terraza (ES/EPP), President of the Junta of Extremadura.

In its communication at the start of the year, the European Commission urged Member States to recognise the central importance of industry for creating jobs and growth and to mainstream in-dustry-related competitiveness concerns across all policy areas. Taking this into account, President of the EPP Group, Michael Schneider, has un-derlined that industry needs to find new ways to ensure that job creation is at the forefront of EU local and regional economies, be that in the field of energy, transport, space and/or digital communi-cations networks.

Furthermore industrial modernisation must be pursued by investing in innovation, resource ef-ficiency, new technologies, skills and access to finance, accelerated by the use of dedicated EU funds. This seminar aims to provide an opportu-nity to identify local and regional opportunities to re-launch growth and jobs in their regions and cit-ies with the view to reaching from the 20% target of industry’s share in Europe’s GDP by 2020.

ALDE group visited the Northern Netherlands

The transition to a sustainable energy system is one of the most important challenges of the com-ing decades. An energy system based on fossil fuel damages the environment and the climate and makes us dependant on other countries. The tran-sition offers great economic possibilities. A delega-tion from the ALDE group visited the Northern Netherlands in September, when Mr Henk Brink (province of Drenthe) and Mr Bote Wilpstra (province of Groningen) showed them how their regions create economic benefits from renewable energy.

The Energy Valley region in the Northern Neth-erlands is one of the European frontrunners when it comes to energy. Companies, governments and knowledge institutions work closely together here in order to realise the sustainable energy system of the future. The region is an excellent example of successful triple helix cooperation. One incidence of this is the release of Switch – the first regional energy plan jointly developed by regional and local governments, research and industry.

Energy system 2.0

As one of the first regions in Europe, the Northern Netherlands realised that achieving a sustainable energy system is not just a matter of replacing fos-sil sources with renewable sources of energy. The integration of the different energy sources - whose output often f luctuates - is the biggest challenge. It is therefore necessary to focus on the energy sys-tem as a whole: Energy system 2.0. What makes the Energy Valley region stand out is the fact that the triple helix partners in the region go beyond set agendas and research, converting them into tangi-ble regional pilots. Energy system 2.0 can only be realised in close cooperation with all the regional parties as well as the central government and the European Commission.

The handover of the Switch document to the Dutch national Minister Henk Kamp

Monago Terraza

Martin Schulz and Nicola Zingaretti

ARLEM meeting in Marseille

At the invitation of Michel Vauzelle, SUDEV co-chair and President of Provence-Alpes-Côte-d’Azur Regional Council (France), members of the Commission for Sustainable Development (SUDEV) of the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM) met in Marseille on 19 September 2014 to debate the recent devel-opments linked to the Euro-Mediterranean strat-egy on environment and climate change as well as sustainable waste management at the local and regional level. In the meeting Michel Lebrun and the Secretariat of the Union for the Mediterra-nean (UfM) reflected on the follow-up of the UfM Ministerial meeting on environment and climate change from a local and regional perspective. The debates were complemented by presentations of projects for more sustainable Mediterranean cities.

An ARLEM report on waste management at the local and regional level in the Mediterranean was presented by Mohamed Boudra, president of the region of Taza-Al Hoceima-Taounate (Morocco), outlining economic, social and environmental is-sues and challenges associated with this topic. It included objectives and measures to be taken to improve the capacity and resources of local and regional authorities to collect, dispose and uti-lise waste. Examples of successful practices were presented by local and regional authorities. Fur-thermore, Mariana Gâju, member of the CoR and mayor of the Cumpăna commune (Romania) outlined key elements of the Committee of the Re-gion’s draft report on “Towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme for Europe”.

EuroPCom 2014

The fifth edition of EuroPCom, the European Conference on Public Communication, will take place on 15 and 16 October 2014 in Brussels. Over 700 communication professionals will discuss the ideas and share their views on the future informa-tion and communication strategy of the EU. In the aftermath of the last European elections and at the start of a new EU legislature, the Committee of the Regions is preparing an own-initiative opinion on the future communication approach for the EU

and its institutions. The opinion “Reconnecting Europe with its citizens: more and better commu-nication at local level” was drafted by Christophe Rouillon (FR/PES) and discussed at the CIVEX Commission meeting on 22-23 September in Brindisi. The draft opinion underlines the need to rethink the EU communication approach: more interaction with and among the citizens, a higher involvement of local and regional politicians and public communicators, a greater decentralisation of the EU communication budget and actions, and a better coordination among the communication services of the different EU institutions.

The future EU communication strategy will be one of the main topics of the 5th edition of EuroPCom, the major annual event on EU public communica-tion, which will take place on 15 and 16 October in Brussels. More than 60 politicians and expert speakers have confirmed their participation at the conference, among them Herman Van Rompuy (President of the European Council), Sandro Gozi (Italian State Secretary for Europe), Michel Leb-run (President of the Committee of the Regions), Jacques Séguéla (founding father of the French ad-vertising industry), Dietmar Dahmen (advertising expert) and Joakim Jardenberg (internet adviser and business angel). The EuroPCom conference is an initiative of the Committee of the Regions, in partnership with the European Parliament, the Italian EU Presidency 2014, the Council of the EU, the European Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee. Communication

and government strategy experts from all levels of government can register for the event until 6 Octo-ber 2014. Conference programme, practical infor-mation and online registration: www.cor.europa.eu/europcom

EA group’s secondary schools’ competition

On the 25th and 26th of June 2014, the European Alliance group welcomed 40 students and teachers to Brussels. The two-day event took place on the occasion of the annual secondary schools compe-tition organised by the European Alliance group. The competition was both an essay writing com-petition and also a multiple-choice quiz on the Eu-ropean Union. The winning students were from countries across the Europe Union including Po-land, Slovakia, Romania, Estonia, Ireland, Lithu-ania and Scotland.

They absorbed the atmosphere of the European institutions, learned about the functioning of the EU and acquainted themselves with the European Alliance members representing their regions, cit-ies and local authorities. In addition, the students were special guests at the 107th edition of the CoR Plenary Session, which was this year specifically dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the Commit-tee of the Regions. Not only did the students have the opportunity to follow the Session live at the Hemicycle in the European Parliament, they were also invited to this photo session with the outgoing CoR President Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso.

European Alliance group President Dr Uno Silberg said that the EA/CoR group Secondary Schools competition is one of the best initiatives to engage young people in discussing the European Union not only in the classroom while undertaking the competition but also amongst each other in Brussels. We should always remember that the youth today are our leaders tomorrow and we should continue this open dialogue with our young students.

Students with Valcárcel Siso and Uno Silberg

eNewsletter

http://cor.europa.eu/en/news/Pages/enewsletter.aspx

The Committee of the Regions’ monthly eNewsletter provides the latest news, forward-looking information about the Committees’ activities as well as region-specific news, interviews and articles. Subscribe online to the eNewsletter, and receive information about the Committee of the Regions’ activities in your region of interest.

Regions & Cities of Europe is published by the Committee of the Regions, the EU institution representing local and regional authorities. Subscription is free of charge. To subscribe, please send your name and address, by e-mail to [email protected] or by post to the following address:

Committee of the Regions Press Department — Subscription to Regions & Cities of Europe Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 99–101 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Would you like to receive Regions & Cities of Europe?

QG-a

a-14

-088

-eN-

c

regions and cities of europe, no. 88

Documents

european project

european commission

european parliament

cities of europe n

european union institutions

cost of noneurope

total cohesion policy

project selection rate